1) I agree. I have been using 3.4.x for a while and it is very stable. It is LTS and probably will be for a while.

2) I also agree. gcc-4.8 is the first release for the move to C++, it's performance has dropped and it may have bugs.

3) I don't use proprietary drivers, so I cannot comment.

Just do what thou wilt, as Crowley once said. As long as you yourself don't go insane, a cautious -current/14.1 would be much better than a borked 15.0. The rest of us can throw caution to the wind when we foolishly desire to.

At risk of being the odd one out, I'd rather opt waiting for another good long time for a super stable Slackware 15.0.

- I had compiled kernel 3.4.6 and 3.7.10 on my test install on this old trusted laptop with Intel i915 chipset and honestly I didn't see any drastic changes in performance except for a couple udevd errors at startup(must be my fault).
- Can't comment on the other two.

Regards.

I like the 3.8.4 kernel...
 

1.) I've been personally quite happy with the 3.8.4 kernel, and decided to use that snapshot of -current as a point of embarkation for deploying new machinery.

I expect a few chugholes here and there along the -current road, but hey, the Slackware suspension in my hotrods are pretty tough, and for situations where I don't want take out the blown 454 or 429 Cobra Jet I stick with the latest Slackware -stable release, moving forward with slackpkg for maintenance.

That, and I'm so content with deciding upon either using Slackware 14.0 for my own enterprise *LTS* Slackware installs or -current for that extra edge in the last few yards of the quarter mile, I would just as soon not concern myself when a 14.1 or 15.0 is due or ready anyway.

It's not like there's any pressing need for a release cycle for -stable to adhere to any schedules anyway.

I tend to lament backtracking a bit in similar fashion to what Chess has related above, and would hope at least that the 3.8.x and/or 3.9.x kernels are included in -current's /extra if we do rollback the kernel in -current.

I certainly do not share the sentiment of my (more able) contemporaries here when they mention "stability" as a hallmark of Slackware (inclusive) - I reserve that distinction for -stable, and not -current, choosing to run -current when I do knowing full well that I may have to do some rollbacks myself or wait to roll forward.

2.) This is where "stability" really makes the difference for me with Slackware, and I defer to the BDFL's wisdom on this point ;) I want (and do expect) my stuff to compile without a hitch.

I like, and prefer running later kernels, and expect that no matter what Patrick chooses as the default I'm going to run something a little more advanced - but if GCC 4.8 is going to sling about errors like a helicopter when I maintain my kernels then that's a potential dealbreaker for me.

3.) I'm in the same boat as Patrick on this one, with respect to running proprietary drivers, since I typically just don't usually use them, so I have to take into serious consideration Ponce's observations on this point and note that rolling back Xorg isn't going to change much for me nor is it likely to negatively impact anyone else on this point of stability.

So to sum things up from my perspective:

• Kernel - Generally speaking, I like taking advantage of and running the newer kernels. I don't install Linux on brand spankin' new workstation hardware anyway, opting instead for well supported laptops, mostly G5 or G6 Proliant servers, and VMs under ESXi 5.10b, Xen, and KVM - so I see no reason to roll back the kernel (why not put the 3.4 kernel in /extra?)
  
  
• GCC - This is a big deal - I want my kernels to compile w/o a hitch. If GCC 4.7 ensures I don't have to wonder about, or fret over this, then by all means let's roll back.
  
  
• Xorg-server - Most of my bare metal consists of Proliant servers, and most of them are running as hosts for VMware, Xen, or KVM anyway. I have no issues with the latest Xorg but would expect fewer issues for others with the 1.13.x series. On my workstations I do want to know that I can take advantage of the latest in DE offerings, like KDE, Xfce, and I'm liking the latest efforts by Chess and Willy in bringing Gnome back to Slackware once more... er.... Mate, rather ;)

Oh, there is one more point. In my offerings, I have only the latest stable versions of Slackware and Slackware64 available for customers, but also make available a Slackware64 -current iso for them to install. I've received zero complaints about the latest -current iso images I have available for customers at this time (the 2013Apr10-20h52-PDT release), and I must say that the 3.8.4 kernel and KDE 4.10.2 seem to be very a popular choice with folks at this time - more than usual for -current, actually).

Therefore, depending on what Pat decides, I may end up making two different versions of Slackware64-current available to my customers - the iso we have up now, and then moving forward with the ones that have earlier kernel and GCC versions.

If we rollback, maybe we can start w/GCC and then the other parts a couple of days later? I know that's a bit selfish, but it sure would be nice to snatch that version and make it available for my VPS customers.

Well anyway, that's my :twocents:

:hattip:

Kindest regards,

.

1) I use 3.8.*, hp laptop keys are back to work (no work with 3.3/3.6) but in "stable" better LTS for me
2) no opition, I have found no problems to compile various programs
3) No problem with nvidia or intel, I haven't amd/ati card. I prefer xorg 1.14

OK, I am getting along very well with insanity (my wife would say that is my normal state), so I have no intention of rolling back anything until I see problems with what I've got. So far, no problems.
Regards,
Bill

Stable should be the goal, Centos kind of follows this model of stable & older instead of bleeding edge as you put it. I like having the latest but at what cost? I'm running Slackware 14 release not -current, there are times I feel the need to try -current, so I have a box setup to do just that, but my laptop (production machine) runs the 14 release from September 28th 2012, kernel 3.2.29 - although I'm still tempted to install newer KDE : )

Having said all that, I'm grateful for your wisdom and willingness to ask the community, that takes courage IMHO.

Thank you for all you do, and to this community!

Do what you think is best for the stability. I'd rather have very stable 14.1 than not as stable 15.0. We're even with the possible roll-back pretty bleeding edge anyway.

Pat,
Thanks for all the work. Stability is much appreciated since I don't have as much time to "fiddle" as I used to. I really don't need for my main box to go all wiggy. When I can, I experiment in a VM, but even that is getting rare. So my 2 cents of feedback:

1. Agree. Stability is paramount.
2. See above. I only maintain a few SBo scripts, and rarely need to compile anything newer than the packages Slackware provides, and I do not have the time to track down odd compiler bugs. That's a game for the young!
3. Sadly, I have this wicked PC video game addiction: so the Nvidia blob is required. They've been usually good at updating for new Xorg releases but there is a lag. So if Nvidia blob doesn't work, then I get all twitchy.... I have various systems with older Intel, ATI, etc so those MUST work OOTB!

Speaking of older systems, I have a post on LQ about getting Slackware32-14.0 running on an old Compaq Armada E500. My game server (mumble, Firefox Sync, Minecraft, Urban Terror, sauerbraten...) is an old HPO/Compaq D530C dating back to 2000, I think. The boy just also brought up Slackware64+XBMC on an old Gateway E-4610S from about 2006 (thinking about cable TV cord cutting...). Except for the Geforce GT430 and VeiwSonic 24" LCD, 500GB HDs, my main desktop is not much newer!

Thanks to the community and to you especially for all the good work!

-Ed

I'll have to second that. My machine has been working so well with Slackware 14.0 that I haven't had the need to change anything at all, besides the security updates and a few SBo packages.

As others have stated, I defer to Mr. Volkerding wisdom in these matters. Praise Bob. :D

I agree with you entirely, Pat. However, I must say that -current is working exceptionally well for me, but I understand you have to look at the big picture. On the points:

1) I was happy to see you upgrade to 3.8.4, because it has built in drivers for my RealTek PCI card reader. I don't have to go building my own driver from RealTek's website. Also, sound works right out of the box (No having to use PulseAudio, thank God!) I downloaded the -current ISO image the day it came out, and burned it to DVD. Now, looks like it was a good decision. Even then, there were some rumblings about going back to the 3.4.x kernel series.

2) This point is well-made. gcc-4.8.0 does not compile some of my packages at all, whereas 4.7.2 has no problem with it at all. If you decide to go with 4.7.3, I'll upgrade to that (at least Eric's multilib version of it).

3) When I installed off of the -current DVD I burned and then tried to install the proprietary AMD drivers, KDE would not start. I tried several different ways to get around this, but I gave up after I realized the situation was not going to change. I regressed to the 1.13.x series, and have had no problem since.

I realize AMD is lethargic in its development of Linux drivers, but I happen to like this laptop (HP Pavilion dv7-7227cl), and plan on keeping it for a good long while. Hence the regression to 1.13.x.

1. I would be fine with kernel 3.4, after all we are Slackers and if one needs a newer kernel it shouldn't be a problem to just compile a new one.
2. Not enough knowledge to comment on this one.
3. I would appreciate the step back to 1.13, I am a gamer and (sadly, should have known better) owner of AMD video hardware. The step to the older version would mean that I can use the proprietary driver again.

+1

But, assuming it will be a .1 release, for sanity and to calm down BOFH sysadmins:

1 - 3.4 (LTS) kernel and 3.8.x > "/extra" (folks with new toys wanna have some fun),
2 - GCC 4.7.3 (With a good 4.7.x enthusiasts can build the 4.8 series),
3 - I gave a middle finger to proprietary AMD/ATI some time ago.

Current is working very nice here right now. No problems with GCC 4.8, no problems with Xorg. I'm using Kernel 3.8.7, but nowadays it is more curiosity than necessity (past problems with AMD/ATI, Atheros wireless,acer-wmi...).

Just a warning here on LQ with some directions and people using (and liking) Kernel 3.8.4 can keep it with little effort.

Whatever the decision, I'm on.

deleted.

I'm not sure. I think that use stable versions of {kernel gcc xorg} for stable release is good idea. For advanced users always is current tree,
but my video card ATI HD7750 working without troubles only with fresh kernel 3.8.
I compiled with gcc-4.8.0 all my packages(95 pieces) without problem(I'm patched only Inkscape and VirtualBox).

May be fresh software + updates, patches later?