Amen!

And they also update their system with Patricks's apps in -current, or compile from source; they are not still on the bottle waiting for Patrick to release a new Slackware version so that they can use new software.

True.
I love the consistant reliability of Slackware and prefer to wait for the next release to upgrade. Whilst a lot of apps have been compiled from source, I don't have a lot of time to play around with my system, and so depend upon Slackware's stability for trouble free computing (It's consistency is a joy). I am looking forward to the next release and am perfectly happy to wait.
I prefer the true and tried, rather than the bleeding edge that many distros impose on their unwary users. Time spent learning Slackware/Linux is far more productive than time wasted hacking around some unstable alternative.
In my experience "Slackware makes (is) good sense!"

Yeah, I'm finding that what you guys told me when I first started is so true, it's not like windows where you need to get your incremental patches, fixes, updates, every day.

Maybe for something like openoffice, ok, but I dont need bleeding xorg 7.0 that gives DRI for maybe .0002% of the linux user population.

I eagerly awaiting the release of 11, I only have 10.0 and currently making my own distro from it. Installed only the packages I want to make a Desktop only OS and tarred and gzipped the drive. At present I'm working on a graphical installer, like Redhat's anaconda, except it will only install a single file instead of packages. If all goes to plan and I can iron out some problems i'm having, I should have it finished when 11 is released, then I can use 11 instead.

There's one thing I don't quite understand - if someone could post a pointer to where I can read up on this I'd greatly appreciate it:

It seems like Pat will support both 2.4 and 2.6 in the upcoming release. At the same time, it's generally frowned upon replacing the default system kernel headers even though one upgrades from 2.4.x to 2.6.x kernels. (I'm presently on 2.6.16x but keep the 10.2 2.4.x kernel headers). To complicate further, I get the impression from LKML that 2.6 kernel headers are preferred for glibc etc.

So - for the upcoming Slackware release - how can he support both 2.4 and 2.6 glibc/etc kernel headers, and what are the consequences both compatibility (both future and historic) and performance wise?

Is there a negative impact for those of us running 2.6 kernels if he still bases the next release on 2.4 from a header and library point of view?

-Y1

Perhaps this historical 6-year old post by Linus Torvalds will explain the kernel headers issue:
http://uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/k...07.3/0587.html

The thing is that you must use the kernel headers that glibc is compiled against.

You can have 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.17.6 kernels all compiled against the version of glibc that Slackware-10.2 uses.

You cannot use kernel headers compiled with glibc-2.3.5 and then update to glibc-2.3.6 and use the same kernel. You will have to recompile your kernel against that new glibc, or software won't compile. So long as you leave the glibc alone, and the headers are compiled against it, you'll have no problems with new kernels.

Notice in the -current ChangeLog Pat states:
When he recompiled glibc, he updated the kernel headers. So if you updated your system to that glibc and were using an older Slackware generic kernel, you would have needed to update to one of those 2 kernels Pat recompiled against.

Also notice in the ChangeLog:
Just as it is right now, you will install all the packages with the kernel you select. If you're running Pat's generic 2.6.17.4 kernel in -current/testing/ now you would have needed to install:
As for compatibility issues, when you keep your glibc from the initial install, and keep those kernel headers intact; you can compile new kernels all day long. I went through about 20 different kernel compiles on Slackware-10.1 -- trying new ones hoping for some ACPI support. I never changed glibc, and never touched my /usr/src/ area, and never experienced one single problem. You might want to read my little kernel compile guide and rant here. I still think building under /home as Linus says, and not touching /usr/src/ is the best idea.

Which version of glibc would they be referring to?

IMO they are preferred, but that's also debatable. There are more apps that we must take into consideration, which is where Pat's present 2.4 vs. 2.6 dillema lies. Most people are using a much later version of udev, HAL, NTPL. etc. with later versions of glibc and 2.6 kernels. I think this is the water into which Pat will wade with -current after Slackware-11.0 is released.

I think what guys are missing is that Pat will have, as outlined above from -current, two complete sets of kernels and headers compiled against whatever glibc Slackware-11.0 comes with that you can choose when you do the install.

As for performance, there is no doubt that 2.6.x kernels perform better than 2.4 kernels. I'll leave the stability issue to those who want to argue that, but I've had no kernel oops or other problems with anything from 2.6.11 onward.

another updates for -current:

we are *really* getting closer to Slackware 11.0

I wonder how long to go now. I have a machine that I just upgraded the CPU and motherboard in and am going to reformat my Linux partition and install 11 when it comes out. For the time being, Windows will have to do :/.

Run -current and you're almost there. We can give you a script to rsync -current and make CD and/or DVD .iso images.

Yup, and from that changelog sounds like 2.6.x kernel will be default for 11.0, finally 2.6.x headers ! Can't wait to see it.

He would not have put 2.6 in extra if it was going to be the default. 2.4 will be the default.

hmm, you're right about something here, but I still think (or atleast hope) Pat will make it the default. atleast it's a start using the 2.6 kernel headers. Anyway, it hasn't been released yet, who knows !?

Yes, it is interesting indeed to see what 11 will be like. It isn't certain yet what Pat will use as the default kernel, he says in Friday's changelog that he will "probably" use the 2.4x kernel as the default.
I'll be happy with what ever Pat decides to use. If he releases 11 with the 2.4x kernel then that'll motivate me to finally compile a 2.6x kernel.
11 is almost here:-)

well, we know that both 2.4.x and 2.6.16.y will be provided and supported... so what difference does it make which one is default?? geez, you're gonna use the one you want either way... slackware 11.0 will be ready when it's ready... i think it would be cool if patrick's TODO list would be public so we could know how far along we really are without all the speculation... it might even help speed things along by letting testers know what to focus on...

Because glibc compiled against 2.6.x kernels performs MUCH better than against 2.4.x, and glibc 2.4 is lightyears better than 2.3, yet we are still on 2.3 because kernel 2.4 is the default.

THere are many, many great things that we cannot have if 2.6 isn't the default. Even if it is offered, the 2.4 as default policy is preventing us from accessing those other benefits of 2.6.