SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
I'll use 2.6, huge26.s to be specific. No real reason to switch from 2.4 (because I've had no problems whatsoever with 2.4), but a minor thing is that I want to try out the driver for wireless cards with Broadcom 43xx chipsets.
Likely, I would install 11.0 with huge26.s, then recompile kernel with my current .config file to 2.6.18
Count me in for that too. I'll keep the stock "huge26.s" around as my backup stable kernel and keep compiling newer vanilla kernels for everyday use. For my samba server, though, I'll probably stick with the stock "huge26.s" for convenience. I'm not running any hardcore servers or anything so there's absolutely no need for 2.4.
. . . but in the end I had a feeling that no one will be using 2.4 and wanted to start a discussion on it.
I will be using 2.4. I am unfamiliar with 2.6, udev, and the other minor nuances that distinguish the two kernels. I have not had time to explore 2.6---just too many other items on my to-do list. I use old hardware and 2.4 is rock solid for me. I like stability and familiarity and when Slackware 11 is official, I want as little interference in my updating as possible.
With that said, 2.6 is supposed to be faster than 2.4. That claim, if true, is enticing to me with my older hardware. At my web site, and here in these forums, I have observed several times that as fast as Slackware is, and as much as KDE continues to improve, my Slackware 10.2/KDE 3.4.3 is not as fast as my old reliable NT4 Workstation. The difference is noticeable, although I am not (yet) obsessed by the difference. With the release of Slackware 11 I expect a tiny speed improvement with KDE 3.5.4. After I update to Slackware 11/KDE 3.5.4 and tweak to my heart's content, I then will decide if experimenting with 2.6 is in my immediate future. But generally, the 2.6 kernel is low on my priority list.
I also will instll huge26 then patch to 2.6.18. My reason for 2.6 is my laptop. I too want the driver for wireless cards with Broadcom 43xx chipsets, ACPI improvement, and the ability for my amd64 turion to change speeds for more effective power management.
depends on your hardware. I mean, an interesting question to ask is .. what will be usable with 11.0? SO if 2.4 is usable, there will be people who'll use it. 2.2 and 2.0 that's a different story. I think trickykid runs 2.2 on one of his slacks (used to anyway). Who's to say 2.0 isn't possible?
Well, for my own personal machine, it's going to be 2.6 - if for no other reason than 2.6 is stable for me, works and I don't mind upgrading to each stable release as and when it arrives. Plus, I've got used to things that compile against 2.6 that I need (e.g. wireless drivers etc.) and it's just easier to stick with what they need.
However, if I do what I usually do and supply my brother with a router/print server/file server/firewall/etc machine, then I will be probably using 2.4.
2.6's udev and hotplug tend to cause me problems in that case because when something breaks, my brother knows enough to slap a new card into the machine, or move the drive to a different machine, but isn't caught-up on the workings of Linux (yet even he understands that it just HAS to be Linux for those sorts of black-box tasks), so it can't play magic with scripts etc. that might interfere with those that are actually running the other parts of his machine. It's amazing how useful an OS bouyed up by primitive shell scripts can be!
But better it breaks because it can't find the network card than it automatically assigns eth1 and eth0 the wrong way round, or the backup scripts start throwing their backups onto the wrong drives. That could mess his data up or potential expose his network. At least without all the shell-script, hardware-detection magic, he will know something is wrong and I'll be called to fix it rather than "let's just use it like it is".
Plus, that machine will never be constantly or automatically updated for the kernel side (although automation of software updates tends to work pretty well) so having an 2.4 kernel won't matter anyway, because it's likely to not be the very latest stable kernel. It's also older hardware and therefore tends to be a little better supported under the older kernels (stuff like ISA networks cards etc. still linger at both our houses - why throw away something that works?)
Having said that, there is no big reason that would stop me using 2.6 on his machine either, but there's also no reason to HAVE to and since 2.4 is still maintained and still has stable updates and security fixes and is also the default on the Slackware install disks, that's what'll get used when I set up his machine because I'll be spending most of "installation time" testing my scripts, making sure the upgrade is clean etc. rather than hunting down more extra packages just to get a different version number on the kernel.
before i just wipe Slack-10.2 off i will install Slack-11.0 in an extra disk partition with the stock 2.6.xx kernel and see how it goes for a few days, if i dont like the 2.6.xx kernel i will re-install Slack-11 with the stock 2.4.xx kernel and try it again for a few days, and what ever one i like best will eventually replace my current install of Slack-10.2 which i heavily customized to my personal taste...
i have confidence in Pat's work, so i doubt there will be a problem...
P.S. installing with Pat's build of 2.6.xx and running make oldconfig with the latest 2.6.xx stable is a good possibility...