LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
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 04-04-2013, 07:40 AM   #1
masayk
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Apr 2013
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Question Minor versions


Hei!
It was always interesting for me whether minor versions mean anything important according to stability etc? Please let me explain, is it correct to say that version 13.37 is more stable and well tested than 13.0?
According to my experience, it seems to me that, for example, 12.2 and 13.37 were more usable and stable releases than 12.0 and 13.0.
Currently I have 13.37 installed in my home computer and 14.0 in my laptop. I think I will wait for some kind of 14.2 to install it to my computer.
So, what do you think about it?
Thank you!
 
Old 04-04-2013, 08:12 AM   #2
wildwizard
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2009
Location: Oz
Distribution: slackware64-14.0
Posts: 755

Rep: Reputation: 226Reputation: 226Reputation: 226
No.

And if you haven't already got it 13.37 is a joke version number.
 
Old 04-04-2013, 08:27 AM   #3
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Midwest USA, Central Illinois
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 11,104
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402
Member response

Hi,
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildwizard View Post
No.

And if you haven't already got it 13.37 is a joke version number.
I agree that the OP has misinterpreted the version level changes for Slackware. And yes, 'leet' label 13.37 is just that, a joke on PV's part. But there are major differences in the 13.37 version and earlier version. Not a joke!
 
Old 04-04-2013, 08:30 AM   #4
ttk
Member
 
Registered: May 2012
Location: Sebastopol, CA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 177
Blog Entries: 13

Rep: Reputation: 85
What wildwizard said. Also, considering the kernel jump from 3.2.29 to 3.8.4, it will not be what one'd consider a "minor" release. Even if he calls it 14.1 or 14.0.1 or whatever. I doubt it will come soon, either.

Several projects have chosen to make version numbers meaningless in modern times, and for good or ill Slackware is one of them. Fortunately the the ChangeLog is there to scrutinize and we can make our own decisions on whether the robustness of one release will have any relation to the robustness of the previous release.

That's a lot less convenient than just glancing at the version number, but more meaningful and precise.

That having been said, I'd be thrilled to pieces if Slackware switched to semantic versioning.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 04-04-2013, 08:36 AM   #5
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 3,364

Rep: Reputation: 898Reputation: 898Reputation: 898Reputation: 898Reputation: 898Reputation: 898Reputation: 898
Slackware is a leaf on the wind. It's stability very much depends on the degree to which upstream are currently blowing or sucking!

 
Old 04-04-2013, 08:47 AM   #6
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 3,364

Rep: Reputation: 898Reputation: 898Reputation: 898Reputation: 898Reputation: 898Reputation: 898Reputation: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by ttk View Post
Also, considering the kernel jump from 3.2.29 to 3.8.4, it will not be what one'd consider a "minor" release. Even if he calls it 14.1 or 14.0.1 or whatever. I doubt it will come soon, either.
Actually, there's been much less disruptive churn hitting us from upstream in this development cycle than we encountered in the last few releases, so despite what seems like a huge kernel jump, current at present does kind of have the feel of a minor release. Having said that though there's certainly been enough upgrades in it to justify Pat choosing to call it 15.0 if he wishes to. Anyway, my vote goes to "Slackware-MMXIII"

Last edited by GazL; 04-04-2013 at 11:15 AM. Reason: spotted a typo
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 04-04-2013, 11:12 AM   #7
allend
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Melbourne
Distribution: Slackware-current
Posts: 3,396

Rep: Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828
If semantic versioning correlated with stability then the order would be Win2000 < Win3.1 < Win7 < Win8 < Win95 < Win98 < WinME < WinNT < WinXP.
I consider that harsh on Win2000 and kind to WinME.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 04-04-2013, 04:02 PM   #8
volkerdi
Slackware Maintainer
 
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Minnesota
Distribution: Slackware! :-)
Posts: 861

Rep: Reputation: 1679Reputation: 1679Reputation: 1679Reputation: 1679Reputation: 1679Reputation: 1679Reputation: 1679Reputation: 1679Reputation: 1679Reputation: 1679Reputation: 1679
Quote:
Originally Posted by ttk View Post
That having been said, I'd be thrilled to pieces if Slackware switched to semantic versioning.
So... if one single shared library bumps to a new .soname, then we could no longer use the same major version number for Slackware, according to the rules of semantic versioning.

This seems pretty useless to me. While the idea itself seems very useful for self-contained projects like a free library, with Slackware it would just lead to a version number of <something>.0 for every single release.

While it may seem that there's no rhyme or reason to Slackware's version numbers, there is to some extent. In the case of Slackware 14.0, the kernel finally moving to 3.x was probably enough to justify it, but other events like including the clang compiler for the first time also factored in.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 04-06-2013, 02:53 AM   #9
solarfields
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: Outer Shpongolia
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 464

Rep: Reputation: 116Reputation: 116
Quote:
it seems to me that, for example, 12.2 and 13.37 were more usable and stable releases than 12.0 and 13.0
all versions have been perfectly usable for me
 
Old 04-06-2013, 04:35 AM   #10
wildwizard
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2009
Location: Oz
Distribution: slackware64-14.0
Posts: 755

Rep: Reputation: 226Reputation: 226Reputation: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by solarfields View Post
all versions have been perfectly usable for me
I don't know about that as version 5 and 6 have done nothing for me.
 
Old 04-06-2013, 05:50 AM   #11
ruario
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Oslo, Norway
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,811

Rep: Reputation: 816Reputation: 816Reputation: 816Reputation: 816Reputation: 816Reputation: 816Reputation: 816
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildwizard View Post
I don't know about that as version 5 and 6 have done nothing for me.
I just pretend they didn't exist!
 
Old 04-06-2013, 07:39 AM   #12
solarfields
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: Outer Shpongolia
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 464

Rep: Reputation: 116Reputation: 116
Quote:
I don't know about that as version 5 and 6 have done nothing for me.
you got me. All versions that I have used...
 
Old 04-06-2013, 09:42 AM   #13
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Midwest USA, Central Illinois
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 11,104
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402
Member response

Hi,
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildwizard View Post
I don't know about that as version 5 and 6 have done nothing for me.
Vapor land distribution version of Slackware. Look here for some historic versions; ftp://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/slackware/
 
Old 04-06-2013, 09:47 AM   #14
ruario
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Oslo, Norway
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,811

Rep: Reputation: 816Reputation: 816Reputation: 816Reputation: 816Reputation: 816Reputation: 816Reputation: 816
@onebuck: pretty sure wildwizard realised that and was joking.
 
Old 04-06-2013, 09:59 AM   #15
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Midwest USA, Central Illinois
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 11,104
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402Reputation: 1402
Member response

Hi,
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruario View Post
@onebuck: pretty sure wildwizard realised that and was joking.
I am sure of it too. I provided link to historic Slackware versions for members who may wish to know where to get earlier versions.
 
2 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
upgrading debian minor build versions and from stable to testing Cultist Debian 3 03-23-2012 08:45 PM
[SOLVED] what are the other differences between fedora versions except their kernel versions teja_vijjapu Fedora 1 01-23-2012 06:38 AM
[SOLVED] Prepare firmware versions availability for current versions mufy AIX 2 01-03-2011 10:19 AM
normal versions vs LTS versions altella Ubuntu 1 11-15-2009 10:39 AM
gcc versions compatibility with kernel versions.. mahesh_manthapuri Suse/Novell 1 03-22-2006 12:28 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:24 PM.

Main Menu
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