LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
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 10-01-2019, 11:11 AM   #61
khronosschoty
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2008
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 477
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 301Reputation: 301Reputation: 301Reputation: 301

Quote:
Originally Posted by ttk View Post
I'm
chomping at the bit for a new release as well, but if it hasn't
happened yet, it can only be because Patrick knows of a compelling
reason.

Patrick's on top of this. We will get a new release when everything is
right.
Same sentiments here.
 
Old 10-02-2019, 03:42 AM   #62
Slackovado
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: BC, Canada
Distribution: Slackware 14.2 x64
Posts: 308

Rep: Reputation: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehartman View Post
Follow -current then: that is the way Slackware is going at the moment.
And it's the wrong way.
Today I had to install a new server at work.
As much as I wanted to use Slackware, I would have hard time explaining to the management (when asked) why I used a "beta" release on a production server instead of a "stable" one.
Even at home I don't run current.
So Debian got installed instead. Debian 10.1 released on September 7, 2019.
Debian stable does releases every ~ 2 years. And supports them for ~5 years.
The party line that "it's ready when it's ready" is utter BS.
It's ready any time, just do the release.
For applications, if there is no major release for over a year, I consider it abandoned / dead.
For Linux distros, 3 years is about the outer limit.
 
4 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-02-2019, 03:55 AM   #63
Slackovado
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: BC, Canada
Distribution: Slackware 14.2 x64
Posts: 308

Rep: Reputation: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisVV View Post
I was intending to be provocative, slightly shocking maybe, because it is a way of identifying the inappropriate (not to mention unrealistic) transferences that lie behind the cultish responses that this subject seems to trigger.

This is amplified by the lack of any discernible information about the direction in which the distribution is planned to go. I suspect it is that, rather than a "missing release", which irritates.
Don't apologize or explain yourself to EU snowflakes.
This trend of "my feelings are offended by ...just about everything" attitude of recent years is like a cancer.
It's this "cancel" what you don't like or don't agree with way of dealing with everything.
In past, we'd never have any friends with this attitude. But when faced with this, we flipped a finger and said "[removed]", giggled and went on to our favorite watering hole to have a beer together and a long conversation about everything and anything (well.. women, politics the most popular topics).
 
Old 10-02-2019, 06:43 AM   #64
ehartman
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Location: Delft, The Netherlands
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,674

Rep: Reputation: 885Reputation: 885Reputation: 885Reputation: 885Reputation: 885Reputation: 885Reputation: 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slackovado View Post
For Linux distros, 3 years is about the outer limit.
So you will never use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (or its free partner distro CentOS)?
- Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.0 (Maipo), June 10, 2014; 5 years ago
- Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.0, May 7, 2019; 4 months ago
(from wikipedia), so that's almost 5 (FIVE) years between major releases (there have been point updates in between for RHEL 7, though, 7 up till now)

Or Suse Linux Enterprise
- SLE 11 24 March 2009
- SLE 12 27 October 2014
- SLE 15 16 July 2018
(there have been no 13 or 14 releases).
So again, in a commercial distro, 4 to 5 years inbetween major releases.

In Suse the equivalent of -current is openSUSE Tumbleweed, while openSUSE LEAP is much more closely related to SLE
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-02-2019, 01:56 PM   #65
Slackovado
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: BC, Canada
Distribution: Slackware 14.2 x64
Posts: 308

Rep: Reputation: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehartman View Post
So you will never use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (or its free partner distro CentOS)?
- Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.0 (Maipo), June 10, 2014; 5 years ago
- Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.0, May 7, 2019; 4 months ago
(from wikipedia), so that's almost 5 (FIVE) years between major releases (there have been point updates in between for RHEL 7, though, 7 up till now)

Or Suse Linux Enterprise
- SLE 11 24 March 2009
- SLE 12 27 October 2014
- SLE 15 16 July 2018
(there have been no 13 or 14 releases).
So again, in a commercial distro, 4 to 5 years inbetween major releases.

In Suse the equivalent of -current is openSUSE Tumbleweed, while openSUSE LEAP is much more closely related to SLE
That's right, I considered CentOS but when I noticed how old the release is, I rejected it immediately. It looks like the distro is understaffed and not maintained sufficiently.
I don't have clients that would want Redhat and pay for the support for Linux, but I'd say it could be considered an exception to the rule due to it's commercial nature.
I strictly reject any software that has dual releases - enterprise/community (open) and never would use one. It's fake open source and I see them forked all the time. Suse is similar in nature to former Mandrake. Don't hear much about either any more on the net.
Sad thing is Mandrake was really good 20 years ago, and I used it for couple years, until they started with the membership/free editions BS. That's when I switched to Slackware.
One year release cycle may look too frequent to some, but those with a new computer are looking at fairly fresh software release, instead of wondering whether this 3 year old OS will run on their new computer.
I liked the one year release cycles of Slackware, and although I don't upgrade as soon as I see a new release, I take my time and install when I have some free time, usually during winter long weekends or holidays.
 
Old 10-02-2019, 04:13 PM   #66
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 3,531

Rep: Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424
So, Slackovado, this all begs the question what is it that you require that is so bleeding edge that stable 14.2 doesn't have or can't get? In my experience Enterprise systems almost always stay a bit behind with "tried and true" excepting very specialized areas of development. As for new hardware support, Debian 10.1 is on 4.19.0 iirc and my 14.2 is running 5.0.20. So what is it 14.2 can't get for you?
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-02-2019, 04:19 PM   #67
bassmadrigal
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: West Jordan, UT, USA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 8,054

Rep: Reputation: 5603Reputation: 5603Reputation: 5603Reputation: 5603Reputation: 5603Reputation: 5603Reputation: 5603Reputation: 5603Reputation: 5603Reputation: 5603Reputation: 5603
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
So, Slackovado, this all begs the question what is it that you require that is so bleeding edge that stable 14.2 doesn't have or can't get? In my experience Enterprise systems almost always stay a bit behind with "tried and true" excepting very specialized areas of development. As for new hardware support, Debian 10.1 is on 4.19.0 iirc and my 14.2 is running 5.0.20. So what is it 14.2 can't get for you?
I'm having a really hard time getting my AMD RX580 to run properly on 14.2 even with trying to update specific packages to support it. I'm now up to the 5.3.1 kernel and I upgraded mesa, which led to many other things needing to be upgraded, and something in there broke my opengl. I've been digging through it trying to find what's broken, but it's been a slow process and I don't have as much time to work on it as I'd like. I'm tempted to just reinstall all the stock packages and then try again.

I'm half tempted to switch to -current, but I know I won't keep it up to date, which can make building stuff from ponce's -current unofficial SBo repo a nightmare.

Upgrading the kernel will provide support for most hardware, but if you're wanting upgraded graphics, you better either run Nvidia and their blob or you gotta get later versions of mesa and the like for the proper support.
 
Old 10-02-2019, 06:02 PM   #68
jeremy
root
 
Registered: Jun 2000
Distribution: Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Fedora, Ubuntu
Posts: 13,425

Rep: Reputation: 3986Reputation: 3986Reputation: 3986Reputation: 3986Reputation: 3986Reputation: 3986Reputation: 3986Reputation: 3986Reputation: 3986Reputation: 3986Reputation: 3986
chrisVV, you've been a member long enough to know posts like #40 aren't acceptable here at LQ.

--jeremy
 
4 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-02-2019, 06:49 PM   #69
Jeebizz
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware14.2 64-Bit Desktop, Devuan 2.0 ASCII Toshiba Satellite Notebook
Posts: 3,167

Rep: Reputation: 936Reputation: 936Reputation: 936Reputation: 936Reputation: 936Reputation: 936Reputation: 936Reputation: 936
My

I admit this cycle has been longer than usual I am itching for a release; but it will be ready when its ready.
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-02-2019, 09:53 PM   #70
Poprocks
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 516

Rep: Reputation: 278Reputation: 278Reputation: 278
A 3-year old stable release with security patches is perfectly fine for a server OS. For a desktop OS it's somewhere between getting a bit long in the tooth and being non-functional on modern hardware.

I think the previous release model worked when releases came out about once to twice per year. Now, the distro on -current and patches/ are no less up-to-date than ever, but optics matter, and the perception is that 14.2, released 3 years ago, is out of date.

Perhaps it's time to re-think the versioning model. 14.2 has received many, many patches. If after a certain point in time, a new ISO were re-rolled applying the current patches, and released as a point release (eg, Slackware 14.3, 14.4, etc.), and new releases as we know them always applied a major version bump, Slackware might not be perceived as out-of-date as it is.

This would be a similar model to Debian, but simplified. When we see that the newest version of stretch is 9.11, released in September 2019, it seems current, even though it's really just 9.0, which was released back in 2017, with security patches.
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-03-2019, 04:18 AM   #71
Slackovado
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: BC, Canada
Distribution: Slackware 14.2 x64
Posts: 308

Rep: Reputation: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
So, Slackovado, this all begs the question what is it that you require that is so bleeding edge that stable 14.2 doesn't have or can't get? In my experience Enterprise systems almost always stay a bit behind with "tried and true" excepting very specialized areas of development. As for new hardware support, Debian 10.1 is on 4.19.0 iirc and my 14.2 is running 5.0.20. So what is it 14.2 can't get for you?
It begs no question since as I clearly (obviously not clearly enough for you) stated that I didn't want to have to explain to management why I installed a beta version of an obscure distro on a production server.
Further I didn't want to go through another distro upgrade in near future when new Slackware is finally released.
Debian is freshly released and good for next couple years right now when I needed it.
 
Old 10-03-2019, 12:39 PM   #72
upnort
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2014
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,890

Rep: Reputation: 1141Reputation: 1141Reputation: 1141Reputation: 1141Reputation: 1141Reputation: 1141Reputation: 1141Reputation: 1141Reputation: 1141
Quote:
Perhaps it's time to re-think the versioning model. 14.2 has received many, many patches. If after a certain point in time, a new ISO were re-rolled applying the current patches, and released as a point release (eg, Slackware 14.3, 14.4, etc.), and new releases as we know them always applied a major version bump, Slackware might not be perceived as out-of-date as it is.
I like this idea. Rolling out a new ISO image requires little work and support. I have a cron job that creates a new ISO image from my local mirror. I pay no mind to the task.

I don't merge /patches but I think in terms of this idea that would make sense. I'm thinking the installer could be updated to look for /patches and if present in the ISO, install those packages. Loosely something like Windows slip streaming.

A point-release creates an illusion that a distro is "keeping pace." Whole number rollouts could be reserved for major releases every two to three years.
 
Old 10-03-2019, 12:53 PM   #73
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 3,531

Rep: Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slackovado View Post
It begs no question since as I clearly (obviously not clearly enough for you) stated that I didn't want to have to explain to management why I installed a beta version of an obscure distro on a production server.
Further I didn't want to go through another distro upgrade in near future when new Slackware is finally released.
Debian is freshly released and good for next couple years right now when I needed it.
Equally obvious as not clearly enough for you (my apologies) is I wasn't asking why you didn't choose -Current (which, btw is beta in name only at worst, not to mention the old saw about software being beta, obsolete or both ) I asked why you didn't just choose 14.2? and specified what about 14.2 was so old AND could not be upgraded to suit your purposes? Quite honestly my question was not meant to be an attack or even bait so no need to be so defensive. I honestly would like to know what specifics compel people to the other old saw "New == Improved".
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-03-2019, 01:43 PM   #74
philanc
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Posts: 270

Rep: Reputation: 238Reputation: 238Reputation: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by upnort View Post

Quote:
Perhaps it's time to re-think the versioning model. 14.2 has received many, many patches. If after a certain point in time, a new ISO were re-rolled applying the current patches, and released as a point release (eg, Slackware 14.3, 14.4, etc.), and new releases as we know them always applied a major version bump, Slackware might not be perceived as out-of-date as it is.
I like this idea. Rolling out a new ISO image requires little work and support.
Especially since/if Pat is no longer manufacturing, packaging, selling physical CD/DVD disks.

Quote:
A point-release creates an illusion that a distro is "keeping pace." Whole number rollouts could be reserved for major releases every two to three years.
+1

The point-release should not be maintained as a distinct release (i.e. no patch created only for a specific point-release). It should only be a snapshot of the corresponding major release with all existing patches applied at the time it is created. (or else, it would become a maintenance nightmare...).

For example a Slackware 14.2.<n> could be issued today, either as a 14.2.n directory tree, or as a 14.2.n ISO install image, with all existing patches for 14.2 applied (not in a separate patches/ subdirectory). The maintenance effort (creating patches) should be mostly unchanged.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-03-2019, 02:31 PM   #75
OldHolborn
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2012
Posts: 193

Rep: Reputation: 159Reputation: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by philanc View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by upnort View Post
A point-release creates an illusion that a distro is "keeping pace." Whole number rollouts could be reserved for major releases every two to three years.
+1
So, rather than release a new Slackware branched off a more recent version of current, so bringing us a new "stable" with more modern packages ( which seems to be what many, myself included, want ) you propose redefining release and making a song and dance about Slackware 14.2.502?

Do you pair work in Marketing?
 
2 members found this post helpful.
  


Reply

Tags
new release


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
How long after release of a new major release do you wait to put a Linux server into production? silence00 Linux - Server 1 08-29-2019 10:49 AM
LXer: I'm excited for a new Ubuntu releaseófor the first time in a long time LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 05-01-2017 11:33 PM
Slackware Essentials update with new release of Slackware? mralk3 Slackware 9 11-10-2015 04:23 PM
how to understand user time, sys time, wait time, idle time of CPU guixingyi Linux - Server 1 08-24-2010 10:10 AM
LXer: Linux Foundation Announce New Members, New Standards Release, New Testkit LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 04-08-2007 11:04 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:09 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
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
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration