There are tons of Linux distros. Most of them are new, some of them are old, some of them so old they don’t exist anymore. But there’s one distro that has stood the test of time, surprisingly. And that’s none other than Slackware.
But how come the ancestor to your own Linux distro is apparently still standing?
What is Slackware?
Let’s go ahead and rewind to 1993, the year Patrick Volkerding released the very first version of Slackware. While it is technically not the first Linux distribution ever created—that distinction belongs to the now-defunct Softlanding Linux System (SLS)—Slackware is unequivocally the oldest distribution that is still actively maintained and widely recognized today. Born originally as a cleanup project of SLS, Volkerding intended to fix bugs and update software packages for his own use and for his local professor. However, as SLS faded into obscurity due to maintenance issues, Slackware quickly rose to prominence, becoming the dominant distribution of the mid-1990s and serving as the foundation for other major projects, including the earliest versions of SUSE Linux.
The philosophy defining Slackware is often summarized by the acronym KISS, or “Keep It Simple, Stupid.” However, in the context of this distribution, simplicity does not imply ease of use for the novice. Instead, it refers to system architecture simplicity. The goal is to provide a system that is transparent, clean, and follows Unix traditions as closely as possible.
Unlike modern commercial distributions that layer complex abstraction tools over the core system to automate configuration, Slackware prefers text-based configuration files and manual intervention. It avoids forcing specific usage patterns on you, aiming instead to be the most “Unix-like” Linux distribution available. This dedication to purity means that Slackware rarely patches software upstream. When you install a program on Slackware, you are getting the software exactly as the original developer intended, without the modifications or branding often added by other distributions like Ubuntu or Fedora.
What is it like to use it today?
It’s… weird. Using Slackware in the modern era is a jarring experience for anyone accustomed to the conveniences of contemporary operating systems, yet it offers a distinct sense of control that is increasingly rare. The most immediate difference you’ll encounter is the absence of automatic dependency resolution. In almost every other modern distribution, instructing the package manager to install a complex application like a video player automatically triggers the download and installation of every background library required to run it. Slackware does not do this. Its package management tools, strictly designed to install, upgrade, or remove specific package files, assume the administrator knows exactly what is needed. If a user installs a piece of software, and it fails to launch because a library is missing, it is up to the user to identify the missing component, find it, and install it manually.
5 pioneering Linux distros that quietly faded into history
Explore the rise and fall of these groundbreaking Linux systems, and how their legacies live on.
Furthermore, the system rejects the industry-standard systemd init system, which has been adopted by nearly every major competitor. Instead, Slackware utilizes BSD-style init scripts. These are simple, readable shell scripts that control the startup and shutdown of services, allowing users to read and understand exactly what happens during the boot process without needing to learn complex new syntax or command-line tools. The installation process itself remains a text-based, ncurses interface that looks virtually identical to how it looked twenty years ago, requiring the user to partition drives and select packages manually.
Once the system is running, however, it is incredibly stable and surprisingly fast. Because it lacks the background services and “bloat” pre-installed on user-friendly distros, the system resources are entirely available for all of your apps. It provides a vanilla desktop experience, typically defaulting to a stock version of KDE Plasma or Xfce, which serves as a blank canvas for the user to configure purely to their own liking.
Should you try it?
Honestly, for most people, the answer is probably no unless you’re willing to devote time to get it running just how you like it. If your primary goal is to have a functional workstation up and running in ten minutes with access to an app store and automatic updates, Slackware is absolutely not the correct choice. It requires patience, reading documentation, and a willingness to troubleshoot issues that other distributions solved by themselves years ago.
For a casual user who views the operating system merely as a bootloader for a web browser, the learning curve will likely result in frustration rather than satisfaction. The manual management of dependencies alone can become a significant time sink for those who are not prepared for the maintenance overhead involved in keeping a modern system secure and functional.
Here’s Why There Are So Many Linux Distros
Because the more the merrier.
However, there is a popular saying in the community that suggests if you learn Red Hat, you know Red Hat, but if you learn Slackware, you know Linux. This holds true because the distribution forces you to interact with the underlying mechanics of the operating system. You must understand permissions, file structures, library linking, and kernel modules to operate the system effectively.
Therefore, if you are a computer science student, a sysadmin looking to deepen your core knowledge, or a hobbyist who wants to understand exactly how the pieces of the Linux puzzle fit together, you should absolutely try it. It offers an educational value that is unmatched by polished, automated alternatives.
Successfully setting up a Slackware environment serves a bit like a masterclass in Linux administration, stripping away the magic of automation to reveal the gears turning underneath. Plus, once you get it right, you’ll actually have a pretty snappy system up and running.
