That is the exact reason for my original posting ! I do think it relevant. I also expressed a biased (and possibly selfish) hope that we'd be going to the 3.9 specifically because I have a use-case for a new feature in it. It would be sad, especially in the -current branch, to go back to a kernel that's a good few months old (ie a lifetime). I kinda think this is the branch that has to prove the mettle for the next release. There's been a ton of updates to 14.0, more so than I can recall for any other before, yet I get the feeling that there's no rush (or necessity) for a newer release as 14.0 is standing up so well.

I vote for 3.4.x.

I agree that Linux 3.9 worths a try, though I'll not make daily use of it.

I can't tolerate anything before 3.6 because of rather poor USB3 support, nor can I live with anything later than 3.8 (incl) because the kernel crashes every time on Bluetooth DUN disconnect.

Pat has uploaded config files for 3.4 and also 3.9 in testing

Interesting.... so which kernel for 14.1

Good sir, forgive my ignorance, but I have never understood this sentiment. It's also the last thing I'd expect to hear from a UNIX greybeard. Distros that move ahead with core components which are essentially "in beta" have their place, I guess, but this is Slackware. I'm here for the stability, and the fact that I'm not left in the dust by failing to upgrade everything every six months or so.

Surely you yourself could manage to use 3.9.whatever in pretty much any distro including Slackware, given your expertise. I just don't see the point in agitating for it, especially in Slackware 'proper'. I don't mean to ruffle feathers, but dang! 3 months is a lifetime for a kernel version? I used to think the Windows upgrade cycle was breakneck...

2 members found this post helpful.

Shipping 3.8 will mean no more security updates for that branch and any new vulnerabilities that come along will either force an update to a new branch which may be in god only knows what state, or leave you vulnerable if you can't move forward for any reason.

Shipping 3.4 will allow for new security fixes to be applied while remaining within the same kernel branch (subject to Greg K-H's best backporting efforts), but will lose us approx 1 years worth of kernel development progress. At this point in time 3.9 is pretty much an unknown (it's meeting my minimal needs, but I don't really put it under any strain).

The ugly truth of the linux kernel development model is that there are no good choices here. The *BSDs do this sort of thing so much better.

Pat has to choose the best of a bad set of choices. If it were my choice I think I'd go with 3.4 on the principle that anyone who wants anything more recent can always upgrade it themselves and it keeps the options open.

1 members found this post helpful.

It seems to me too like the most reasonable choice, as no other LTS kernel is programmed yet (I'm also hoping this changes soon).

I doubt we'll see a new LTS before Q4 this year. Greg has committed to supporting 3.0 until then and he's not likely to want to take on maintenance for 3 LTSes in addition to the latest and previous stable branches that he also maintains.

+1
I pointed out this months ago and a moderator blamed me of spreading FUD.
It's not about FUD, I think that the linux development model it's just wrong, at least for a kernel.

Hi @STDOUBT. I'm not yet a greybeard - I'm a sprightly 51 years old (and bald[ish]). Your point I believe is very accurate for the final (thus any stable) release of Slackware. But -current is never considered stable, or final (at least until Pat says so). So, it's the perfect place for a 3.9 kernel. Sure - add a 3.4 too, but as that's in the current stable and is well tested under that, there's not much more to learn from it. -current is exactly where we want to be under the circumstances - which are that 3.8 is dead. Someone mentioned 3.9 was in /test - I hadn't noticed that.

Or you just patch that vulnerability and be done with it. It is not Windows XP, it's open source.

You call it "progress" but newer isn't always better. I have still boxes running a "dead" 2.6.37.6 from 13.37 just fine and I know of no pressing security issues, which require a kernel upgrade there.

The development model is okay, but you have to choose wisely as a distributor.

Then just upgrade to 3.9 and be done with it. Is see no reason, why others have to use a rather unstable 3.9, because you need some new feature.

But -current is supposed to be the next -stable. So at some point you have to stop testing new stuff and start the release engineering.

1 members found this post helpful.

I don't know why they didn't make 3.8.x LTS. I don't like this decision, and I think it will affect some distributions.

I doubt 3.9 will be LTS, as I think only even numbered kernels have this possibility.

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it.


That's just one that is fresh in my memory, there may well be others (I would expect it to be likely after all this time), but I'm not in a position to say. As the linux kernel devs don't maintain a security errata it is very easy for the security impact of patches to slip through unnoticed.