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

Closed Thread
 
Search this Thread
Old 05-28-2006, 02:55 AM   #91
Bruce Hill
HCL Maintainer
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Tupelo, MS
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 6,926

Rep: Reputation: 124Reputation: 124

A bit premature when there aren't a whole lot of 64-bit apps.
I do have one AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor and I would like to
see the pony run through his paces. Perhaps I'll try Frugalware.
 
Old 05-28-2006, 07:26 AM   #92
pdw_hu
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Distribution: Slackware, Gentoo
Posts: 346

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by masonm
Slack-current seems pretty stable to me.
Same here.
I've been updating to current from 9.1 and never ever had stability issues.
 
Old 05-28-2006, 04:19 PM   #93
win32sux
Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9,870

Rep: Reputation: 371Reputation: 371Reputation: 371Reputation: 371
i think it would be insane for pat to release slackware 11.0 before linux 2.4.33 is released by marcelo... linux 2.4.32 simply has _way_ too many security issues (and also plenty of non-security ones)...
 
Old 05-28-2006, 05:26 PM   #94
Bruce Hill
HCL Maintainer
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Tupelo, MS
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 6,926

Rep: Reputation: 124Reputation: 124
Since Pat has already stated Slackware-11.0 will have a 2.6 kernel, this point is moot.
 
Old 05-28-2006, 05:52 PM   #95
win32sux
Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9,870

Rep: Reputation: 371Reputation: 371Reputation: 371Reputation: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinaman
Since Pat has already stated Slackware-11.0 will have a 2.6 kernel, this point is moot.
slackware has had kernel 2.6 since like WAY back... in fact i think it was like one of the first distros to have it if i'm not mistaken... but unless he pulls it out of testing and makes it the default kernel, the point is like soooooooooo NOT moot... it's insane to release a distro with a default kernel which resembles swiss cheese...

Last edited by win32sux; 05-28-2006 at 05:54 PM.
 
Old 05-28-2006, 06:22 PM   #96
win32sux
Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9,870

Rep: Reputation: 371Reputation: 371Reputation: 371Reputation: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by win32sux
slackware has had kernel 2.6 since like WAY back... in fact i think it was like one of the first distros to have it if i'm not mistaken... but unless he pulls it out of testing and makes it the default kernel, the point is like soooooooooo NOT moot... it's insane to release a distro with a default kernel which resembles swiss cheese...
win32sux, i think chinaman was probably refering to this comment in the changelog (Mon Apr 24 14:29:50 CDT 2006):
Quote:
testing/packages/linux-2.6.16.9/kernel-source-2.6.16.9-noarch-1.tgz
Upgraded to Linux 2.6.16.9 kernel source.
BTW, I think 2.6.16.x, being the first kernel series in the 2.6 series that has been promised some long-lived support, will be the 2.6 kernel you'll see in the next Slackware release.
but still, the comment doesn't really say that 2.6 will be the new default (although it very well could be)... so the original point still stands: if 2.4 will still be the default for slackware 11.0, then it's best for everyone if he waits until marcelo releases linux 2.4.33...

Last edited by win32sux; 05-28-2006 at 06:30 PM.
 
Old 05-28-2006, 06:30 PM   #97
Bruce Hill
HCL Maintainer
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Tupelo, MS
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 6,926

Rep: Reputation: 124Reputation: 124
Even WAY before that Pat stated it would have a 2.6 kernel...

The later ChangeLog.txt you referenced just lets you know it will be 2.6.16.x unless something better comes out.

Last edited by Bruce Hill; 05-28-2006 at 06:34 PM.
 
Old 05-28-2006, 06:39 PM   #98
win32sux
Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9,870

Rep: Reputation: 371Reputation: 371Reputation: 371Reputation: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinaman
Even WAY before that Pat stated it would have a 2.6 kernel...
okay, but when you say "have a 2.6" do you mean it's gonna be the new default?? if so, then what happens to 2.4?? does it go to pasture or does it become a non-default choice during the install?? BTW, it's not like i don't believe you or anything, i would just like to read what you are basing yourself on... could you please post a link to the interview or mailing list archive or wherever he said that 11.0 will default to 2.6?? cuz he seems to be taking a lot of care making sure everything works smoothly with 2.4... for example i can cite a changelog entry from Mon Mar 13 18:53:57 CST 2006:
Quote:
a/glibc-solibs-2.3.6-i486-3.tgz: Recompiled against 2.4.32 and 2.6.15.6 kernel headers. Yes, I have seen that shiny-looking glibc-2.4 release on ftp.gnu.org, but glibc-2.4 completely drops support for linuxthreads, and therefore will not support vanilla Linux 2.4.x kernels. I don't think we're quite ready for that yet around here.

Last edited by win32sux; 05-28-2006 at 06:57 PM.
 
Old 05-28-2006, 07:04 PM   #99
Bruce Hill
HCL Maintainer
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Tupelo, MS
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 6,926

Rep: Reputation: 124Reputation: 124
I'm looking for the quote to give you, just haven't found it yet -- busy also building a 2.6.16.18 on a customer's box to deliver today with hardware I'm unfamiliar with.

He was originally intending it for what became 10.2 -- at that time he asked some selected people their opinion on releasing a 10.2 with a 2.4 default kernel in Sept. 2005 and then a 11.0 with a 2.6 default kernel after the new year.

But in considering a default 2.6 kernel, Pat is having to deal with other issues beyond his control -- such as a new glibc and udev, along with other issues. And if you've tried udev with a 2.6 kernel, then you understand the problems with that. Remember when Pat had trouble with Slack -current and udev even with 2.4? It would be nice if udev worked properly -- I'd like to use it so my 10 or so USB devices would mount sanely like in Windoze.

Is 2.6 stable that bad? I've been running it for some time now on a few different boxen with no issues that I know of -- yes, they have bug fixes. Isn't that good? Beats the release of fixes for that other POS OS for sure.

Anyway, I don't want to argue the point. We shall see what we shall see. I can't use Pat's default kernels (2.4 or 2.6) for my boxen, and they don't have brand new chipsets. Can't remember when a couple of my USB mice worked with a default Slackware install. I'm always building Slackware boxen and recompiling the kernel. And 2.6 stable works a whole lot better than 2.4 for me.

But I don't run a 2.6 kernel on my server, and my LAN is hardened well afaik.
 
Old 05-28-2006, 07:16 PM   #100
win32sux
Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9,870

Rep: Reputation: 371Reputation: 371Reputation: 371Reputation: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinaman
I'm looking for the quote to give you, just haven't found it yet.
cool, no hurry...

Quote:
Anyway, I don't want to argue the point.
there's no arguing here, it's just a friendly discussion... basically, i said it would suck to release slackware 11 before marcelo has released linux 2.4.33... then you said it didn't really matter because slackware 11 would use linux 2.6... this kinda struck me as an odd thing to say for two reasons:

1) slackware has had a 2.6 kernel available for the longest time (several releases)...

2) i never imagined slackware 11 would be replacing the 2.4 kernel with a 2.6 (which is kinda what it sounds like you are saying)...

Quote:
We shall see what we shall see.
indeed, but i'm still not exactly sure if you were saying 2.6 would be the new default or if 2.6 would replace 2.4 (for the 11.0 release), or something else perhaps??

i'll tell you what i've been imagining would happen (ever since 10.2 was released): i had imagined that slackware 11.x would continue the tradition of defaulting to 2.4, while making it easy to choose 2.6 if you want... and then slackware 12.x would completely abolish linux 2.4, becoming a purely 2.6-based distro... anyways, that's what i had imagined... like you said, we'll see what happens...

Last edited by win32sux; 05-28-2006 at 07:33 PM.
 
Old 05-28-2006, 08:29 PM   #101
unixfool
Member
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: Northern VA
Distribution: Slackware, Ubuntu, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OS X
Posts: 781
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 157Reputation: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by win32sux
cool, no hurry...

there's no arguing here, it's just a friendly discussion... basically, i said it would suck to release slackware 11 before marcelo has released linux 2.4.33... then you said it didn't really matter because slackware 11 would use linux 2.6... this kinda struck me as an odd thing to say for two reasons:

1) slackware has had a 2.6 kernel available for the longest time (several releases)...

2) i never imagined slackware 11 would be replacing the 2.4 kernel with a 2.6 (which is kinda what it sounds like you are saying)...

indeed, but i'm still not exactly sure if you were saying 2.6 would be the new default or if 2.6 would replace 2.4 (for the 11.0 release), or something else perhaps??

i'll tell you what i've been imagining would happen (ever since 10.2 was released): i had imagined that slackware 11.x would continue the tradition of defaulting to 2.4, while making it easy to choose 2.6 if you want... and then slackware 12.x would completely abolish linux 2.4, becoming a purely 2.6-based distro... anyways, that's what i had imagined... like you said, we'll see what happens...
I specifically remember Pat V. coming into ##slackware about a year and a half ago. Answering someone's question, I remember him saying that 2.6 WOULD be in the next version, and he did state that that version would be v11.

2.6 may come with Slack and may have been included with Slack for awhile, but its been in /testing (and for a reason).

When Pat said that 2.6 would be in v11, I'm assuming he meant as a default kernel, as 2.6 already comes with Slack already...his statement could only mean one thing, without reading into it all. Looking at the changelogs, it appears that he's a target version in mind already. I don't see a problem with having 2.4 OR 2.6, as I usually end up compiling my own anyways. It would be nice to see Slack migrate to 2.6 as default though.
 
Old 05-28-2006, 09:16 PM   #102
J.W.
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Distribution: Mint
Posts: 6,642

Rep: Reputation: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by vonst
<<<edit: For all just now reading this thread, LQ does NOT have the kind of posters who know the latest Slackware rumours. >>>
.... nor does any other forum.......
 
Old 05-28-2006, 09:31 PM   #103
liquidtenmilion
Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: South Carolina
Distribution: Slackware 11.0
Posts: 606

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by unixfool
I specifically remember Pat V. coming into ##slackware about a year and a half ago. Answering someone's question, I remember him saying that 2.6 WOULD be in the next version, and he did state that that version would be v11.

2.6 may come with Slack and may have been included with Slack for awhile, but its been in /testing (and for a reason).

When Pat said that 2.6 would be in v11, I'm assuming he meant as a default kernel, as 2.6 already comes with Slack already...his statement could only mean one thing, without reading into it all. Looking at the changelogs, it appears that he's a target version in mind already. I don't see a problem with having 2.4 OR 2.6, as I usually end up compiling my own anyways. It would be nice to see Slack migrate to 2.6 as default though.
He has NO choice BUT to use 2.6 kernel, by DEFAULT, and infact move 2.4 into /pasture soon.

AFAIK from what i've read, glibc 2.4 removes linuxthread support entirely, which means that 2.4 kernels will not even boot up at all on systems that ship glibc 2.4, only 2.6. He's going to have to upgrade to glibc 2.4 eventually, as programs will demand it, which also means that he is going to have to remove 2.4 completely soon too.
 
Old 05-28-2006, 10:03 PM   #104
davidsrsb
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Distribution: Slackware 13.37 current
Posts: 770

Rep: Reputation: 33
There is nothing to stop PK issuing a 2.4.33 kernel as a critical security fix for 10.2, 10.1 and however far back is still supported.

2.4.33 does not have new features and therefore does not support the newer chipsets and nics.
 
Old 05-28-2006, 11:02 PM   #105
theoffset
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2005
Location: Guadalajara, Jal, Mexico
Distribution: Slackware Linux
Posts: 211

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinaman
Is 2.6 stable that bad? I've been running it for some time now on a few different boxen with no issues that I know of -- yes, they have bug fixes. Isn't that good? Beats the release of fixes for that other POS OS for sure.

Anyway, I don't want to argue the point. We shall see what we shall see. I can't use Pat's default kernels (2.4 or 2.6) for my boxen, and they don't have brand new chipsets. Can't remember when a couple of my USB mice worked with a default Slackware install. I'm always building Slackware boxen and recompiling the kernel. And 2.6 stable works a whole lot better than 2.4 for me.
2.6 has Oopsed me around 4 or 5 times now -in 3 of these, the system stoped working and had to reboot, while 2.4 has only done it once (AFAIRemember)... Also, even Andrew Morton (mantainer of the 2.6 releases) had stated that the bugs in the Kernel are having a big raise and that it could be possible that a bugfix-only release cycle occured (I remember I read this somewhere in KernelTrap).

A thread in lkml was started asking for a 2.7 branch, and to try to stabilize 2.6 -it ended in a rotund NO, though...

Also, a guy -I don't remember his name-, stepped forward to mantain 2.6.16 as a stable release and backport bug/security-fixes (I read about this in KernelTrap, too)

I'd bet, that if the bugfix-only release cycle where done, Pat would include the resulting 2.6 as the default kernel in Slackware. Meanwhile, we'll have to wait and see if 2.6.16.x ends up being stable enough...

Last edited by theoffset; 05-28-2006 at 11:04 PM.
 
  


Closed Thread

Tags
advice, chat, far, general, upgrade


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
Slack 10.2 slack 10.2 ran xserver after all on sata with via board devafree LinuxQuestions.org Member Success Stories 5 05-30-2006 11:54 PM
Frozen-Bubble(from slack 8.2) Not Running in slack 9 bongski55 Slackware 8 01-02-2006 04:10 PM
Slack 10.1 will a Slack 10 Wine pkg work? acummings Slackware 1 03-25-2005 04:55 AM
Using Slack 10's 2.6.7 kernel packages on Slack 10.1? SocialEngineer Slackware 1 03-05-2005 11:53 AM
cd rom error on installation media (With both slack 9,1 and slack 10) busbarn Slackware - Installation 6 07-15-2004 03:03 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:58 AM.

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