LinuxQuestions.org
Support LQ: Use code LQ3 and save $3 on Domain Registration
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 05-13-2013, 10:11 AM   #31
hitest
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Prince Rupert, B.C., Canada
Distribution: Slackware, OpenBSD
Posts: 4,283

Rep: Reputation: 588Reputation: 588Reputation: 588Reputation: 588Reputation: 588Reputation: 588

I am happy with whatever Pat decides to do. I am happy with the 3.8.13 kernel in slackware-current. Everything is working well from my perspective.

Code:
Mon May 13 06:11:15 UTC 2013
a/kernel-firmware-20130512git-noarch-1.txz:  Upgraded.
a/kernel-generic-3.8.13-i486-1.txz:  Upgraded.
a/kernel-generic-smp-3.8.13_smp-i686-1.txz:  Upgraded.
a/kernel-huge-3.8.13-i486-1.txz:  Upgraded.
a/kernel-huge-smp-3.8.13_smp-i686-1.txz:  Upgraded.
a/kernel-modules-3.8.13-i486-1.txz:  Upgraded.
a/kernel-modules-smp-3.8.13_smp-i686-1.txz:  Upgraded.
d/kernel-headers-3.8.13_smp-x86-1.txz:  Upgraded.
k/kernel-source-3.8.13_smp-noarch-1.txz:  Upgraded.
extra/linux-3.8.13-nosmp-sdk/\*:  Upgraded.
isolinux/initrd.img:  Rebuilt.
kernels/*:  Upgraded.
testing/source/config-testing-3.4.45/*:  Added.
testing/source/config-testing-3.9.2/*:  Added.
usb-and-pxe-installers/usbboot.img:  Rebuilt.
 
Old 05-13-2013, 11:26 AM   #32
willysr
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: Jogja, Indonesia
Distribution: Slackware-Current
Posts: 2,638

Rep: Reputation: 451Reputation: 451Reputation: 451Reputation: 451Reputation: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by willysr View Post
i do agree with Linux Kernel 3.8.x for now
i'm using VMWare here and i think it's broken if we used a combination of Linux Kernel 3.9 and GCC 4.8 to rebuild the modules
it worked with Linux Kernel 3.9 and GCC 4.7 or Linux Kernel 3.8 and GCC 4.8
Now VMWare Workstation works well with Linux Kernel 3.9.2 and GCC 4.8.0
 
Old 05-13-2013, 11:27 AM   #33
jtsn
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Europe
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 908

Rep: Reputation: 447Reputation: 447Reputation: 447Reputation: 447Reputation: 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by GazL View Post
Ignorance is bliss, isn't it.
Local exploits aren't a threat in my use cases.
 
Old 05-13-2013, 01:47 PM   #34
Martinus2u
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2010
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 353

Rep: Reputation: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
I don't know why they didn't make 3.8.x LTS. I don't like this decision,
There is no decision NOT to turn a kernel release into LTS. You get an LTS release if and only if a volunteer steps up to do it. Feel free to volunteer for 3.8.

Quote:
I doubt 3.9 will be LTS, as I think only even numbered kernels have this possibility.
no, see above
 
Old 05-13-2013, 01:51 PM   #35
volkerdi
Slackware Maintainer
 
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Minnesota
Distribution: Slackware! :-)
Posts: 877

Rep: Reputation: 1827Reputation: 1827Reputation: 1827Reputation: 1827Reputation: 1827Reputation: 1827Reputation: 1827Reputation: 1827Reputation: 1827Reputation: 1827Reputation: 1827
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
I doubt 3.9 will be LTS, as I think only even numbered kernels have this possibility.
It used to be (in 2.6 kernels) that an odd third digit in the version meant it was a development branch, but since the kernel development model changed I don't think odd/even carries any special meaning now.
 
Old 05-13-2013, 06:46 PM   #36
jtsn
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Europe
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 908

Rep: Reputation: 447Reputation: 447Reputation: 447Reputation: 447Reputation: 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by volkerdi View Post
It used to be (in 2.6 kernels) that an odd third digit in the version meant it was a development branch,
Which led to the Linux 2.4 dilemma: People wanted features included into the stable kernel, so they backported/added features to the stable 2.4 branch and preferred it. Meanwhile kernel developers couldn't change groundbreaking things in 2.4 without breaking compatibility, so 2.5 diverted further and further from what was used in the real world. (The same thing happened to FreeBSD 4, where sponsors developed new code for the -STABLE branch instead of the next major version.)

Shortly after renaming 2.5 into 2.6 and declaring it stable, the Linux kernel developers decided against a 2.7 branch to not create a new 2.4-style issue. Since then odd numbers have no special meaning anymore.
 
Old 05-13-2013, 09:34 PM   #37
the3dfxdude
Member
 
Registered: May 2007
Posts: 332

Rep: Reputation: 100Reputation: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by GazL View Post
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)
If it is "back-ported" to 3.4, then that means the same fix can be applied to 3.8. This is assuming that the fix originated from something newer. The only thing that promotes a version "LTS" is someone declaring it is so. I'd much rather just use something that already works and make an intelligent decision on what to do than blindly follow the flurry of CC:linux-stable.
 
Old 05-13-2013, 11:20 PM   #38
Skaperen
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2009
Location: WV, USA
Distribution: Slackware, CentOS, Ubuntu, Fedora, Timesys, Linux From Scratch
Posts: 1,777
Blog Entries: 20

Rep: Reputation: 116Reputation: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by GazL View Post
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.
Given how bad 3.8 is for USB, I'd worry that 3.4 it going to cut USB 3.0 completely for a lot of people. but this is based on the rumors since I have not tested 3.4. I'm going to try out 3.9 this weekend. If it is stable, then I'd put my hat into the 3.9 ring. But is 3.9 an "LTS" kernel line?
 
Old 05-13-2013, 11:22 PM   #39
Skaperen
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2009
Location: WV, USA
Distribution: Slackware, CentOS, Ubuntu, Fedora, Timesys, Linux From Scratch
Posts: 1,777
Blog Entries: 20

Rep: Reputation: 116Reputation: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
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.
Maybe they need to stabilize their LTS numbering.
 
Old 05-14-2013, 05:53 AM   #40
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,653
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097
There is no LTS numbering. As was pointed out earlier already, LTS versions only appear if someone steps up to maintain them. GKH is not willing to support more than two LTS versions (understandable, I would think), which are currently 3.0 and 3.4, IIRC. So if he decides to let 3.0 go then we will (probably) get a new LTS, or if a different person steps up for the task. release schedules or version numbers are not involved at all in deciding which kernel gets LTS status.

My two cent: Keep the 3.8 kernel, as 13.37 has kept 2.6.37. For people that need newer kernels there is already a config for 3.9 in /testing, for people that want a LTS kernel there is a 3.4 config in /testing. As a Slackware user one should be knowledgeable enough to decide which one to use.

Last edited by TobiSGD; 05-14-2013 at 06:56 AM. Reason: typos, typos everywhere
 
Old 05-14-2013, 06:05 AM   #41
guanx
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,014

Rep: Reputation: 147Reputation: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skaperen View Post
Given how bad 3.8 is for USB, I'd worry that 3.4 it going to cut USB 3.0 completely for a lot of people. but this is based on the rumors since I have not tested 3.4. I'm going to try out 3.9 this weekend. If it is stable, then I'd put my hat into the 3.9 ring. But is 3.9 an "LTS" kernel line?
If you try Linux 3.9, dial-up networking via bluetooth will give you suprise.
 
Old 05-14-2013, 06:51 AM   #42
D1ver
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2010
Distribution: Slackware 13.37
Posts: 527
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 126Reputation: 126
If there are no kernel updates to the stable tree after it's released I don't see the big deal of shipping a kernel that isn't LTS. If you have to compile updates yourself you can just as well jump to a different kernel branch.

I think it's a good idea to stick with 3.8 if it's well tested in -current.
 
Old 05-14-2013, 07:27 AM   #43
guanx
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,014

Rep: Reputation: 147Reputation: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by D1ver View Post
...
I think it's a good idea to stick with 3.8 if it's well tested in -current.
As I have already pointed out twice the 3.8 kernels crash on normal bluetooth operations. Because 3.8 is dead this will never be fixed.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-14-2013, 09:20 AM   #44
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
I think it's definitely a good idea NOT to stick with 3.8 in current for all of the above mentioned reasons.

I didn't know that GKH volunteered to maintain LTS kernels, I though he was appointed. Well, in that case, it is his choice. I have never coded or maintained kernel code, and I'm pretty sure you wont want me to either.
 
Old 05-14-2013, 09:42 AM   #45
Citramonum
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Aug 2012
Distribution: Slackware 14.1
Posts: 16

Rep: Reputation: 1
3.8 is dead today, 3.9 will be dead a month later, there is no much difference. What is not good idea in my opinion it is sticking with so called LTS since the last one is more than year old and no one knows when the next will be. I vote for Linux 3.11 for Workgroups to be next LTS.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[SOLVED] Kernel 3.7.1 keyboard's dead RoyBatty100 Slackware 2 03-07-2013 12:41 AM
LXer: Openmoko Gets New Life in Brazil After Being Declared Dead LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 07-14-2009 10:30 AM
Dead kernel link B4lulu Linux - Newbie 4 08-28-2007 11:30 PM
Kernel updated, now Internet dead dmorrell Linux - Networking 1 04-26-2006 04:40 AM
keyboard dead with kernel 2.6.4 matrixfx Linux - Hardware 2 03-26-2004 11:06 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:31 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration