I don't.

Cheers

and
better boot/reboot times
a update applet
some additional hardware config,
someone must build and provide binary packages additional needed
an other image as the vintage system
....

Slackware in enterprises only where a Slackware enthusiast can decide alone, or install it on machines where no one asks for the OS, Exceptions might confirm the rule.

Guys, just out of curiosity, is new kernel version is the harbinger of new Slackware release? If so, does it means that kernel rebuilding is something unusual for Slackware? Is it a kind of taboo?
And what is kernel version of current Slackware?

No, we go through kernels a lot in -current. Nothing new.

Slackware is a vintage distribution, but like any good vintage, it only gets better with age. Slackware is like fine wine. It gets better with age, the less you mess with it.

As far as PAM, I'd rather see OpenPAM than LinuxPAM, but that's my take.

remove ldconfig, xfontcache, gtk caches and such for faster boot (or put them with a flag)
not that computers that are on all day need fast boot
automatic update is easy, no need for applet
y, slackbuilds built and tested by a sysadmin
slackware works on everything

there is a thread where more knowledgeable people then me have said some things
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...se-4175491654/

I for one am really hopeful Pat will do a 14.2 release, that is pretty near to the current -current. It would be nice to get updated XFCE (and KDE for the folks that use that ;-)) and some more library updates.

I think it would mean a bit of revenue to help sustain Pat, and the rest of us will get solid release with up to date compiler, libs, and DEs, to tide us over while we wait to see how the ecosystem adapts to things like Wayland and a certain other things...

Irrelevant in enterprise scenarios.
Completely irrelevant, machines are administered remotely. You actually don't want an "update applet" there.

And let's be realistic: Enterprise Linux means virtual machines on data center servers without any GUIs, color management or stuff, while clients are Windows/Office maschines. Enterprise Linux means a long-term support contract with a Linux corp (like RH).

All Linux corporations have their own Linux distribution, they don't need Slackware. The only thing they need is Debian et al to be a clone of their distribution, so if they acquire a new support customer, they can easily convert the machines to their own stuff and lock the customer in.

1 members found this post helpful.

Slackware is a company too. And was even before RH existed. What a pity.

Cheers

1 members found this post helpful.

Slackware might have been a company longer than Red Hat, but Red Hat is a huge corporation compared to Slackware. Many mainstream distributions also have dedicated "server" distributions also that cater to servers and networked systems, as well as "desktop" distributions for desktops, laptops, and workstations. Slackware is a general purpose distribution with one a single release. Apples and oranges.

That. I'm close to believe they've succeeded with regard to recent events and changes in direction of Debian.

However I'm afraid we are beating a dead cow here …

Debian?! Oh... You mean CoreOS with apt-get?

1 members found this post helpful.

That's one way to put it. You could call it a brown fedora for example.
There's also green and silver fedora, so I'm not so sure we need another flavor.

I totally understand that some people like to argue about the company fitness of Slackware
I also like Slackware and would like to see it on more places
but the reality is
in fare more than 10 years where I work with Linux,
and in the more than 2 hand full of companies I have seen from inside because I was involved in projects
Slackware was only available where I brought it to,
and this was only possible on machines/systems where no one cared which system runs.

I know that there are some Slackware business installations, mostly servers
and there is even Microlinux, I find it great that it exists and relay wish that this project will have a huge success.

but these are currently exceptions and we, Slackware users and enthusiasts, have to accept that at the moment in real business Slackware is nearly nonexistent.

now we can ask us:
why is this so?
there are for sure reasons

and are we happy with this,
I am not happy with this
I think some are, and some want even that Slackware is somehow exotic for most Linux users, to be an 'exotic' Linux nerd who uses Slackware.

but I would like to see Slackware being a real alternative,
where people can at least think and discuss if it is suitable for some scenario
not like it is now, where for most people Slackware is not even an alternative to discuss about.

1 members found this post helpful.

Seriously... I think systemd is a dead issue on Slackware to be honest. PAM (possibly OpenPAM) might have a chance, but systemd... no. We honestly don't need to have CoreOS with pkgtools as an update. That wouldn't be much of an update.

Slackware has always been "THE" alternative if you look at it. Every distribution tries to cater to this and that, but not Slackware. There is no catering. It's just back to basics, UNIX-likeness that shows the true power of a Linux distribution when you strip away catering, shortcuts, and insane automation levels to make a Linux distribution that's less like Windows, and more like a BSD or other UNIX.

2 members found this post helpful.

Please people let's avoid that this thread becomes boringly serious, let alone seriously boring, and let's have fun as that's the only worthwhile goal.

I remind you that the topic is "Are we there, yet"?

According to the tradition, in addition to baseless ETA forecasts and their preferably insane rationale, are only allowed:

• jokes,
• funny stories,
• cartoons,
• more generally whatever only intended to put us in good mood or make us laugh.

3 members found this post helpful.