Logo for slack -current

sycamorex · 05-04-2010, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GazL

You know, when I see the confusion in this thread, I can't help but think Ubuntu has the right idea with their silly animal names. Therefore I propose that the next current be called "Slacking Snake".

or 'swift salamander'

Jeebizz · 05-04-2010, 02:52 PM

Eww.. Lets just leave the 'wannabe pithy' naming schemes to Ubuntu.

GazL · 05-04-2010, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeebizz

Eww.. Lets just leave the 'wannabe pithy' naming schemes to Ubuntu.

Indeed. But what I was alluding to is that Slackware's development cycle is more or less the same as Ubuntu's except all our animals are called 'current', but each current is still a different animal.

sycamorex · 05-04-2010, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Agree. So it will be nice if people who decide to stay with slack-current will be provided with some help or advice.

You can complain on many things in Slackware (well, not really

) but you can't complain on the level of support out there. There are lots of knowledgeable guys here on LQ. Furthermore, slackware devs are regulars here and in some other places like irc and alt.os.linux.slackware. Last but not least, you've got excellent documentation online (slackbook, slackwiki, etc.)

Quote:

Perhaps there are readers of this thread who are now curious what is it all about, why some have slack-current other don't have, and how they can get slack-current. Is it some kind of a mystery? I suppose they also should be given a simple explanation. What is it, how it works

Isn't that what a number of LQ members (including AlienBOB - slackware developer) did in this thread? Furthermore, AlienBOB has an excellent script to create -current isos on his website.

What else does one need to be happy?

GazL · 05-04-2010, 03:30 PM

Ok, one last try. Perhaps this example will clear things up....

OpenBSD also works with 'current' and 'stable'. Their system works like this.

Code:

Current ------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
                |Release 1             |                        |
                                       |Release 2               |
                                                                |Release3

In OpenBSD, current is a continuous entity and each Release is a point in time snapshot/fork of current.

Now, compare to the Slackware way of doing it:

Code:

Current ---------| Stable 1------------------------------------------------------------>
                                |Current -----------------> | Stable 2------------------------->
                                                                             | Current -------------->

Unlike OpenBSD, at certain points in time there is no such thing as 'Current'. Current starts, runs for a while and then turns into the next Stable. Then after a short while a new 'current' forks from stable.

If that doesn't show why current doesn't really exist in it's own right, then I'm at a loss to explain it any better. But if you can accept that it doesn't exist, you'll see why it doesn't need a logo too.

hitest · 05-04-2010, 03:40 PM

You can find Eric's -current build script at his site (in my signature). There is a lot of support on this forum and on the Internet for Slackware stable and -current. However, if you're choosing to run -current you are expected to be able to trouble-shoot some issues on your own.
The Slackware Team (Pat, Robby, Eric, et al) is very busy at the moment working on 13.1.

igadoter · 05-04-2010, 03:46 PM

Let take closer look at your pictures GazL. IMO they prove in the contrary:
there are no really big differences between how are developed openbsd and slackware.

Richard Cranium · 05-04-2010, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by igadoter

Let take closer look at your pictures GazL. IMO they prove in the contrary:
there are no really big differences between how are developed openbsd and slackware.

There aren't a lot of differences between a living person and one that just died.

igadoter · 05-04-2010, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Cranium

There aren't a lot of differences between a living person and one that just died.

No idea what are you talking about. Can only guess. Can you explain?

ROXR · 05-05-2010, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by igadoter

No idea what are you talking about. Can only guess. Can you explain?

I imagine that he say, because Open BSD is some dead and slackware is full life

broken · 05-05-2010, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROXR

I imagine that he say, because Open BSD is some dead and slackware is full life

Or the other way around

afreitascs · 05-05-2010, 11:13 PM

living person: A person who possesses life.
dead person: A person who does not have life.

Well at this point should be to define what life would be .... Tricky, no?

igadoter · 05-06-2010, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afreitascs

living person: A person who possesses life.
dead person: A person who does not have life.

Well at this point should be to define what life would be .... Tricky, no?

Nice but what about zombie?
zombie: a dead person who possesses life (and looks ugly).

Richard Cranium · 05-06-2010, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by igadoter

No idea what are you talking about. Can only guess. Can you explain?

"Not many differences" != "Not many important differences"

vigi · 05-07-2010, 02:46 PM

The reason other logos are more memorable than Slackware; You have to keep booting up.
You see the slackware logo once - and get on with you work.

Slackware stable can get boring at times; because it does not break.