What are the pros and cons of upgrading to 2.6?

I know 2.6 has all sorts of spiffy new features, but is there any compelling reason to compile the newer kernel, or to avoid it?

if your using slack 10, you dont' have to compile the kernal, there is a package you can dl! (or get off the /test directory off the second slack cd).

with 2.6 it seemed i had to patch alot of drivers, and had a couple of issues with some programs :/

overall I had an easier time and less trouble just sticking to 2.4

One year ago I chose slackware distribution because it was the first at this time compatible
with 2.6 kernels out of the box (module-init-tools etc...).
As I use linux as a workstation/Desktop, not as server, I wanted to try the preemptive feature.
I remember I noticed a noticable speed difference in X (in KDE, open more quickly the windows).
I never see a reason to revert to 2.4 since that.

I can think of no "compelling reason" to use 2.6 unless you have hardware that requires it. I did not notice any reall difference and had some hinkiness with it.

Hardware support is the only reason I know of such as LCD screen modules or SATA support.

mnt/cdrom/testing/packages/linux-2.6.7/README.initrd

read the above file on slack CD #2 Distro 10.0

This will walk you through the process. Also keep in mind that you need the newer source, module,alsa, and header packages for the 2.6 kernel.

Most distros have prebuilt 2.6 kernels in rpms/debs that u can download & install w/out having to compile the source code (though it has been argued that the latter is preferable). I believe firewire support (drivers etc) and NTFS write support is more stable in 2.6 than in 2.4 (though still experimental). I also believe there has been a slight improvement in performance of my X after upgrading the kernel. It's best to use the latest stable kernel if you connect a lot of devices on the fly (like non mass-storage USB/Firewire stuff, digikams etc) as it is more probable that a compatible driver exists in the modules tree of a newer kernel. I don't think it's that big of a deal, though. 2.4 is fine (but not 2.2, as I have been told by some of the kernel developers that they rebuilt and modernized a lot of the hardware layer stuff when they went from 2.2-2.4).

I recommend swtiching up to 2.6 if you feel like your desktop drags or need better performance in games.
If your not using slack for gaming, then it's not that big of a deal.
Although compiling your own kernel is a good idea IMO.
That way you have it setup perfect for your individual system.

You know the old saying,..."If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

c'mon slovak, this is the slackware forum. The motto here should be "if it ain't broken, break it; then fix again."

Try out the 2.6.x kernel, if you like it stick with it, if not just revert to the 2.4.x series kernel (backing it up before compiling the new kernel)

If it's not broke, you did something wrong.

"A.D.D. and linux don't mix"

ADD and linux mix just fine.
it frequently is the only thing that can let the ADD posterchildren can focus on.

;-)

I like running 2.6.7 on my laptop and desktop. My laptop is an older machine, and I like the way 2.6.7 performs on it. For servers I still use 2.4.x though. There are a few really nice speed improvements that really make it worthwhile.

Run 2.6 across my home network, and 2.4 here at the office. No noticeable gains in the upgrade, but the geek points are nice.

Let me rephrase that, If it ain't broke, tweak it!