or 'swift salamander'

Eww.. Lets just leave the 'wannabe pithy' naming schemes to Ubuntu.

Indeed. But what I was alluding to is that Slackware's development cycle is more or less the same as Ubuntu's except all our animals are called 'current', but each current is still a different animal.

You can complain on many things in Slackware (well, not really) but you can't complain on the level of support out there. There are lots of knowledgeable guys here on LQ. Furthermore, slackware devs are regulars here and in some other places like irc and alt.os.linux.slackware. Last but not least, you've got excellent documentation online (slackbook, slackwiki, etc.)


Isn't that what a number of LQ members (including AlienBOB - slackware developer) did in this thread? Furthermore, AlienBOB has an excellent script to create -current isos on his website.

What else does one need to be happy?

Ok, one last try. Perhaps this example will clear things up....

OpenBSD also works with 'current' and 'stable'. Their system works like this.
In OpenBSD, current is a continuous entity and each Release is a point in time snapshot/fork of current.

Now, compare to the Slackware way of doing it:
Unlike OpenBSD, at certain points in time there is no such thing as 'Current'. Current starts, runs for a while and then turns into the next Stable. Then after a short while a new 'current' forks from stable.


If that doesn't show why current doesn't really exist in it's own right, then I'm at a loss to explain it any better. But if you can accept that it doesn't exist, you'll see why it doesn't need a logo too.

You can find Eric's -current build script at his site (in my signature). There is a lot of support on this forum and on the Internet for Slackware stable and -current. However, if you're choosing to run -current you are expected to be able to trouble-shoot some issues on your own.
The Slackware Team (Pat, Robby, Eric, et al) is very busy at the moment working on 13.1.

Let take closer look at your pictures GazL. IMO they prove in the contrary:
there are no really big differences between how are developed openbsd and slackware.

There aren't a lot of differences between a living person and one that just died.

No idea what are you talking about. Can only guess. Can you explain?

I imagine that he say, because Open BSD is some dead and slackware is full life

Or the other way around

living person: A person who possesses life.
dead person: A person who does not have life.

Well at this point should be to define what life would be .... Tricky, no?

Nice but what about zombie?
zombie: a dead person who possesses life (and looks ugly).

"Not many differences" != "Not many important differences"

The reason other logos are more memorable than Slackware; You have to keep booting up.
You see the slackware logo once - and get on with you work.

Slackware stable can get boring at times; because it does not break.