Posted by: Anonymous
on March 04, 2008 06:36 PM
SLAX has only one developer as far as I know and that is Tomas Matejicek, something I think the author should be aware of, yet makes references to "the developerS" of SLAX. The author also fails to understand that SLAX was never meant to be a full fledged OS running 24/7 on a machine. More than 3/4 of the article talks about lack of module, lack of applications, only having KDE apps, and not looking good. SLAX is a liveCD and that fact means to install the necessary on the system to save space, although you can easily install SLAX to the hdd of a machine using the built in installer. SLAX is 192MB, small, portable and easy to download and even easier to customise, which many people, including prominant universities, are doing and releasing their own distributions for security, multimedia, lifesciences, etc. You want a complete system - go download the full slackware 12 and customize it.
The author acknowledges the fact that he could install packages from slackware and etc and that all the changes he made remained after rebooting. It shows the modularity of SLAX and that it can either be a stripped down OS or full fledged, depending on what you want from it. Yes the initial 6.0.0 has a few bugs in it that the betas didn't and once the bugs were reported, bug fixes were out immediately resulting in 6.0.1 and not 6.0.2 released.
In fact the entire article, referencing eyecandy and lack of apps and asking about swap (when SLAX runs from RAM) shows the author has no clue about what SLAX is for. Writing an article critiquing a person's work without actually understanding the purpose of the work says very little for the author. Maybe its time he learned to do a little research before flaming the good work of others.