LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
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 06-12-2018, 02:36 PM   #1
basharx
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Posts: 12

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
release cycle (revisited)


Hi,

I'm sticking with Slackware since 1995, I like the philosphy,
but wonder about the last dilated release cycles. I mean if
the target group is mostly old-timers + a few adventurous types,
that's ok.

But many newbies will be seriously put off if they try out
the last "stable" version and their system will fail to install
a boot loader to NVME, or, if they manage to fix that, the
system stays off-line after reboot because the kernel won't
detect their recent gigabit ethernet adapter (e1000e).

I know there is a backlog of things to do, and we're all
happy for every patch and fix PV and the team develop or
adopt from other enthusiasts, but hw/sw development has
expanded and cycles have shortened compared with 20 years
ago. I greatly appreciate focus on stability and relatively
conservative view on adding new features, but having release
cycles over 2 years as a norm would de facto turn Slackware
into a rolling distro.

But hey, maybe it's all in the distro name...

Last edited by basharx; 06-12-2018 at 03:05 PM.
 
Old 06-12-2018, 04:20 PM   #2
ninikos
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2012
Posts: 35

Rep: Reputation: 28
Quote:
But hey, maybe it's all in the distro name...
And what is wrong with it?

Should we all chasing whatever new while drinking our kool aid? As far as I know, not everything new means better

Having _stable_ systems _is_ a big deal for _me_ (and the systems that i care about)

Not only slackware is stable, but compiling a kernel and using it for newer hardware _is_ much more straight forward and successful to do compared with any other (big) distros. The same is true for updating and _recovering_ for almost every single package
of the whole dstribution. Moreover almost all of the time everything just works, provided some common sense.

KISS :*

Last edited by ninikos; 06-12-2018 at 04:22 PM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-12-2018, 04:33 PM   #3
montagdude
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2016
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 965

Rep: Reputation: 681Reputation: 681Reputation: 681Reputation: 681Reputation: 681Reputation: 681
Go over to the Ubuntu forums and look at how much trouble people have with the supposedly well-tested LTS versions that are released every two years during the first several months after a release. I'll stick with a distro that releases a new version when it's ready, thank you very much.
 
12 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-12-2018, 10:35 PM   #4
RadicalDreamer
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2016
Location: USA
Distribution: Slackware64-Current
Posts: 688

Rep: Reputation: 302Reputation: 302Reputation: 302Reputation: 302
Maybe not change the release cycle but add the latest LTS Kernel to extra for the most recent stable release after a period in Current. The 4.14.XX series is stable enough to do that.
 
Old 06-13-2018, 12:50 AM   #5
basharx
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Posts: 12

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by montagdude View Post
Go over to the Ubuntu forums and look at how much trouble people have with the supposedly well-tested LTS versions that are released every two years during the first several months after a release. I'll stick with a distro that releases a new version when it's ready, thank you very much.

Sure, but I described a different problem above, it was not about you or me.
If you cannot serve a bootable system in your last stable version, many
new users will look elsewhere, even to Ubuntu.

So yes, maybe occasional upgrade to kernels/bootloaders would be safe
or even beneficial in most situations. For example, in 14.1 a forced security
update from 3.10.17 to 3.10.107 seemed to have solved occasional hangs for me
while starting X. But the change should preferably be done to the original
installation tree, for example, after a certain period spent in patches/packages.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-13-2018, 02:00 AM   #6
descendant_command
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,606

Rep: Reputation: 422Reputation: 422Reputation: 422Reputation: 422Reputation: 422
And what’s wrong with that?
Not every distro must cater to the lowest common denominator.
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-13-2018, 03:01 AM   #7
a4z
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,578

Rep: Reputation: 665Reputation: 665Reputation: 665Reputation: 665Reputation: 665Reputation: 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by montagdude View Post
Go over to the Ubuntu forums and look at how much trouble people have with the supposedly well-tested LTS versions that are released every two years during the first several months after a release. I'll stick with a distro that releases a new version when it's ready, thank you very much.
this statement includes a lot polemic. If the same amount of Ubuntu users with the same experience level in Linux would use Slackware, you could argue exactly the same and replace the distro name.

it is obvious that since some time, with the 14 release, the release Slackware cycles became longer, notable longer. look it up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slackware#Releases

this has some effects, the OT mentioned NVM and new network hardware.
It must be OK to discuss this without such, not very productive, polemic comments.
 
4 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-13-2018, 04:23 AM   #8
Skaendo
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2014
Location: West Texas, USA
Distribution: Slackware64-14.2
Posts: 704

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by a4z View Post
this statement includes a lot polemic. If the same amount of Ubuntu users with the same experience level in Linux would use Slackware, you could argue exactly the same and replace the distro name.

it is obvious that since some time, with the 14 release, the release Slackware cycles became longer, notable longer. look it up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slackware#Releases

this has some effects, the OT mentioned NVM and new network hardware.
It must be OK to discuss this without such, not very productive, polemic comments.
You fail to realize that Ubuntu has a very large team working on it, where Slackware has PV and the chosen few with bits thrown in from users.

And personally, I like the release cycle of Slackware. Have you seen the release cycle of some distro's like Linux Mint? they've only been around since 2006 and are getting ready to release number 19. That's just crazy if you ask me.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-13-2018, 04:34 AM   #9
a4z
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,578

Rep: Reputation: 665Reputation: 665Reputation: 665Reputation: 665Reputation: 665Reputation: 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skaendo View Post
You fail to realize that Ubuntu has a very large team working on it, where Slackware has PV and the chosen few with bits thrown in from users.
I am very well aware of the fact, so please keep your verbal hammer in your pocket ;-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skaendo View Post
And personally, I like the release cycle of Slackware.
And I don't care too much, if I want I run current. But this has no relation to the valid point the OT does, and starting a productive discussion without retoric hammers and empty phrases we all know here (and some like me start to become tired of them)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skaendo View Post
Have you seen the release cycle of some distro's like Linux Mint? they've only been around since 2006 and are getting ready to release number 19. That's just crazy if you ask me.
and openSuSE Leap was at 42.x and is now back to 15

Last edited by a4z; 06-13-2018 at 05:11 AM. Reason: typo
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-13-2018, 04:40 AM   #10
hydrurga
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2008
Location: Pictland
Distribution: Linux Mint 19 MATE
Posts: 5,115
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skaendo View Post
You fail to realize that Ubuntu has a very large team working on it, where Slackware has PV and the chosen few with bits thrown in from users.

And personally, I like the release cycle of Slackware. Have you seen the release cycle of some distro's like Linux Mint? they've only been around since 2006 and are getting ready to release number 19. That's just crazy if you ask me.
It all depends what you're used to. As a Mint user, a new major release every 2 years doesn't seem excessive to me, particularly as those releases can be quite distinct. I mean we're not talking Google Chrome or Dropbox version numbering here.

I have to agree with another poster though - you take the cake out of the oven once it's ready. One of the good things I like about Mint is that although they stick to a general schedule based on Ubuntu LTS, they won't release a new version until it's ready rather than choosing and sticking to a specific date.
 
Old 06-13-2018, 05:25 AM   #11
Skaendo
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2014
Location: West Texas, USA
Distribution: Slackware64-14.2
Posts: 704

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by a4z View Post
I am very well aware of the fact, so please keep your verbal hammer in your pocket ;-)


And I don't care too much, if I want I run current. But this has no relation to the valid point the OT does, and starting a productive discussion without retoric hammers and empty phrases we all know here (and some like me start to become tired of them)


and openSuSE Leap was at 42.x and is now back to 15
Have you ever had a conversation without turning into a douche nozzle?
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-13-2018, 05:39 AM   #12
Darth Vader
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Location: Romania
Distribution: DARKSTAR Linux 2008.1
Posts: 2,339

Rep: Reputation: 912Reputation: 912Reputation: 912Reputation: 912Reputation: 912Reputation: 912Reputation: 912Reputation: 912
The release cycle becomes longer and longer because the operating system itself because more and more complex.

Heck! The 4.0 release shipped KDE and it still installed under a freaking 1GB! Now we are over 10GB, last I checked.

So, we are 2 years away from the 14.2 release, and the Plasma5 was not yet adopted, while Eric swears that it will be part of 15.0 ...

Did you really believe that our BDFL will adopt Plasma5 (which is roughly a third part of distro, as number of packages) on the last 100 meters before 15.0 release? Myself nope.

So, I bet on a current release cycle of 3 or 4 years long and in future it will become even longer.

I believe that the single solution to have shorter release cycles is to cut down the main distribution, specially putting the future Plasma5 in its own repository, officially sanctioned or not.

Last edited by Darth Vader; 06-13-2018 at 05:50 AM.
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-13-2018, 05:52 AM   #13
montagdude
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2016
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 965

Rep: Reputation: 681Reputation: 681Reputation: 681Reputation: 681Reputation: 681Reputation: 681
Quote:
Originally Posted by a4z View Post
this statement includes a lot polemic. If the same amount of Ubuntu users with the same experience level in Linux would use Slackware, you could argue exactly the same and replace the distro name.

it is obvious that since some time, with the 14 release, the release Slackware cycles became longer, notable longer. look it up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slackware#Releases

this has some effects, the OT mentioned NVM and new network hardware.
It must be OK to discuss this without such, not very productive, polemic comments.
That's true to some extent, but it's not the whole story. I was reading said Ubuntu forums recently, in a thread where someone was complaining about all the issues with the recently released 18.04 LTS. (That thread was eventually locked, as tends to happen over there when people criticize.) The general advice was to never install an LTS until the first bug fix release several months later, if you want something stable and well tested. If a large team of developers consistently does not have enough time to actually test things and squash major bugs before the fixed release date, that should tell you something about the downsides of that type of release cycle.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-13-2018, 06:55 AM   #14
solarfields
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: Outer Shpongolia
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 834

Rep: Reputation: 326Reputation: 326Reputation: 326Reputation: 326
So, what do we do? We just admit to ourselves that Linux lags behind when it comes to support of the most modern hardware? Just try to relax while waiting for things to settle down a bit and become stable? Which will coincide with the next release of Slackware.
 
Old 06-13-2018, 08:01 AM   #15
Gerard Lally
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware, Crux, NetBSD
Posts: 1,373

Rep: Reputation: 826Reputation: 826Reputation: 826Reputation: 826Reputation: 826Reputation: 826Reputation: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by basharx View Post
Sure, but I described a different problem above, it was not about you or me.
If you cannot serve a bootable system in your last stable version, many
new users will look elsewhere, even to Ubuntu.
Is this the same "stable" Ubuntu that abandons its own in-house projects every couple of years to move on to the next biggest thing? And the next, and the next? The bug-ridden Ubuntu is the least stable OS I've ever tried. But at least it boots?
 
  


Reply


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
LXer: Kernel release cycle LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 12-11-2015 12:24 AM
kernel release cycle vkmgeek Linux - General 1 07-30-2008 07:31 AM
Debain release cycle? plesaleza Debian 20 09-01-2007 08:10 PM
Is the Debian release cycle too slow? Pcghost General 15 03-27-2005 09:01 PM
Release Cycle? ubuntu-addict SUSE / openSUSE 12 11-17-2004 02:55 PM

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

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:42 AM.

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
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration