Just curious....why slackware?

[squishyalt]

It would seem to an untrained n00b like myself that there would be many advantages to using a code base with a much wider base of support for users and applications.

So, just why is BackTrack built on Slackware instead of another, more widely supported base like Ubuntu (or one of it's sisters)?

Just curious.....

[imported_BaconZombie]

Ubuntu is Linux for XP/Vista users, a pretty point and click system and shiny resource hogging kreig for people who do not want to learn to much CLI and therefore not suited to how BT is designed i.e. striped down to the essentials with a full array of tested and fine tuned tools, drivers and components.

If anything I'd prefer BackTrack built around RHEL via CentOS {with is a direct rebuild of RHEL, also for reference Oracle Unbreakable Linux is also a slightly customised rebuilt} due to it having such a big market share in enterprise environments.

It would seem to an untrained n00b like myself that there would be many advantages to using a code base with a much wider base of support for users and applications.

So, just why is BackTrack built on Slackware instead of another, more widely supported base like Ubuntu (or one of it's sisters)?

Just curious.....

[squishyalt]

Ubuntu is Linux for XP/Vista users, a pretty point and click system and shiny resource hogging kreig for people who do not want to learn to much CLI and therefore not suited to how BT is designed i.e. striped down to the essentials with a full array of tested and fine tuned tools, drivers and components.

If anything I'd prefer BackTrack built around RHEL via CentOS {with is a direct rebuild of RHEL, also for reference Oracle Unbreakable Linux is also a slightly customised rebuilt} due to it having such a big market share in enterprise environments.

I thought there were versions of Ubuntu (like xubuntu) that were lightweight (at least lighter than the full ubuntu distro).

As for the CLI, all Linux distros have the shell don't they? And, users will have to learn to use the shell, because a lot of these tools just don't come with a cute gui. But, in Ubuntu, they'd have a friendlier environment to grow into CLI and they'd have a hell of a lot more people ready, willing and able to help with misc distro problems.

As for drivers and components...I'd think you'd be hard pressed to find a more supported Linux distro than Ubuntu.

And, with the great support for Ubuntu from Canonical and from the Ubuntu user forums, the Remote-Exploit forums would not get as many requests for OS-specific stuff and could really concentrate on pentesting.

Also, with the Canonical people supporting the OS, RE would be free to work more on the awesome toolset that they have to broaden it, update it and generally make it the best pentest toolkit in the world (which is already is IMHO - but it would be easier to really distance themselves here if they didn't have as much OS and driver work to worry about).

Thanks for your post!

[Thorn]

Slackware is one of the oldest Linux distros availeble. It dates back to July 1993, and is very well known and understood, and very stable. With the Slax, the modular version of Slackware, you get a small, fast and portable Linux distro.

As much as I like Ubuntu for new users, it is just as bloated Vista. That's one of the things that makes it attractive and less scary for new users, but makes it unattractive for building a system of tools like Backtrack. (By the way, Ubuntu itself is built on Debian.)

If they were to use Ubuntu (or most other distros), the creators of Backtrack would have to tear out huge chunks of the system (and proabably breaking a lot of things) and spend a huge amount of time on just the base system, before they could build it back to where they wanted and have it be stable. With the modularity of Slax, the BT creators get to start off with a distro that is already modular and stripped down, yet fully functional, so they can concentrate on adding the pen test tools, and not worry about whether they've correctly rebuilt the base system.

All-in-all, Slax/Slackware is a good choice for them to make.

[imported_wyze]

Slackware is one of the oldest Linux distros availeble. It dates back to July 1993, and is very well known and understood, and very stable. With the Slax, the modular version of Slackware, you get a small, fast and portable Linux distro.

Yep. Small size, stability and modularity make it a worthy choice (and a pita for n00bs).

[r0v0s]

i think backtrack is not the choice for linux beginners
so the normal user of backtrack knows quiet a little bit about linux, so it does not need to be like ubuntu

[The_Denv]

Like my grandfather once said: "It is the way it is, because it is".

I love Back|Track the way it is, always have. The advancements that the devs make on B|T are always good decisions. The only flaw about B|T is that the kernel is held hostage by madwifi and this does limit some systems; but not all.

EDIT: Just like most people have said here, Back|Track is not for Linux beginners. I actually remember I had an argument with a co-worker in Maplin Electronics that Ubuntu was for Linux beginners, my co-worker kept forcing his opinion across stating that Ubuntu was the 'elite' flavor. Little did he know that when he was kicking football around as a kid, I was using BSD in my bedroom learning some kick-ass digital moves.

[ghaze]

What happens if, after "learning" ubuntu, or redhat or mandriva or any of the other point and click distros, you find yourself at the command prompt of some kind of *nix server? Will you know how to proceed without all the pretty gui config tools? If you'd learned slackware to begin with, you might.

Slackware tends to do things the linux way. What you learn on slackware will work on any linux distro, for the most part. Knowing how to configure your ubuntu laptop's nic with some gui isn't going to do you much good on some headless server somewhere.

Slackware tries to be the most unix-like linux distro. I think it succeeds.

i think backtrack is not the choice for linux beginners
so the normal user of backtrack knows quiet a little bit about linux, so it does not need to be like ubuntu

BackTrack isn't meant to be a good distro to learn basic linux on. I don't think the devs intended for people to use it as their main os, either. You ever think that maybe one of the reasons they choose slax was to frustrate wannabes?

I think ubuntu is wonderful, don't get me wrong. My sister-in-law is even using it on her old laptop. It's great for learning linux on. BT is great for pentesting. Choose the right tool for the job.

[Re@lity]

As the old saying goes......

"Use RedHat and learn ReadHat. Use Slackware and learn Linux"

This applies equally well, nowadays, to most if not all of the modern day "full on" desktop distros, such as Ubuntu, Mandriva, Suse, etc.

[Twain]

What happens if, after "learning" ubuntu, or redhat or mandriva or any of the other point and click distros, you find yourself at the command prompt of some kind of *nix server? Will you know how to proceed without all the pretty gui config tools? If you'd learned slackware to begin with, you might.

Slackware tends to do things the linux way. What you learn on slackware will work on any linux distro, for the most part. Knowing how to configure your ubuntu laptop's nic with some gui isn't going to do you much good on some headless server somewhere.

Slackware tries to be the most unix-like linux distro. I think it succeeds.

I agree with this. It may sound cheesy, but I love the way Backtrack the way it is. I really dislike user friendly distros like Ubuntu, IMHO they don't spread the word of open source or any of that, they just bring a big bandwagon and give a commercial tint to the whole philosophy, as if it's just a fashion in technology.

I learned on Slackware, it was tough at first, but I rate diving into the deep end ahead of just putting your toe in the water.