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 06-07-2009, 02:03 PM   #46
sycamorex
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: London
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 5,836
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242

According to the 13th Book of Revelation, verse 13:
Quote:
And he [Pat/Slackware] doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth...
They didn't mention it in the changelogs.
 
Old 06-07-2009, 05:40 PM   #47
niels.horn
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 1,004

Rep: Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by sycamorex View Post
I haven't checked the slackware website, but does it actually say anywhere that it's going to be 13.0?
It was mentioned in the official changelog "way back" on December 2nd, 2008:

Quote:
Invasive changes like the new X (that will require changes to
xorg.conf) and merging KDE4 should probably wait for Slackware 13.0.
It was also mentioned when Slackware64-current became public on May 15th:
Quote:
... DVDs will be available for purchase from the Slackware store when Slackware 13.0 is released....
So, despite this interesting thread, I guess it will be Slackware 13.0 after all

Last edited by niels.horn; 06-07-2009 at 05:41 PM. Reason: (typos...)
 
Old 06-07-2009, 08:47 PM   #48
niels.horn
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 1,004

Rep: Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by niels.horn View Post
How about Slackware 5.0? It has never been released before
Ahem... Cough... Cough... I need to correct my own post...

After some research on older Slackware versions, I found that Slackware 5.0 was released on August 20th, 1999.

This is from the ChangeLog included with Slackware 7.0:
Code:
Fri Aug 20 17:22:50 CDT 1999
a1/hdsetup.tgz:  Added patches for cpkgtool from Ellen Geertsema to handle
                 packages with long names in the package removal menu.
                 Added /etc/slackware-version.
                 Bumped version numbers to Slackware 5.0.0.
                 Patched CD-ROM setup menu to make "NO" the default choice
                 when asking if the CD-ROM should be mounted at boot time.
                 Enlighten the user as to why answering "YES" can be bad.
                 (* Slackware 5.0.0a release *)
Now, I know that it was never released on CD, but it was an intermediate version, available for download, just like:
5.1a (Mon Aug 23 03:42:12 CDT 1999)
5.2b (Mon Aug 23 22:14:34 CDT 1999) --> a version bump in less than 24h!
5.2b (Wed Aug 25 14:20:35 CDT 1999) --> again?
6.0.0-beta (Thu Sep 2 21:31:18 CDT 1999)
6.1.0-beta (Mon Sep 6 22:17:58 CDT 1999)
6.2.0-beta (Thu Sep 9 17:45:30 CDT 1999)
6.3.0-beta (Sun Sep 19 21:53:00 CDT 1999)
6.3.1-beta (Thu Sep 23 01:26:35 CDT 1999)
6.5.0-beta (Wed Sep 29 17:58:01 CDT 1999)
6.9.0-beta (Thu Oct 7 18:43:45 CDT 1999)
6.9.1-beta (Sun Oct 10 00:27:08 CDT 1999)
and then came the 7.0.0-beta versions...

Just some funny history of Slackware
 
Old 06-08-2009, 05:11 AM   #49
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.2 & current
Posts: 7,914
Blog Entries: 59

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Ah, so there was no gap, no jump from 4 to 7. Another myth shattered...
 
Old 06-08-2009, 06:36 AM   #50
hitest
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Prince Rupert, B.C., Canada
Distribution: Slackware, OpenBSD, Debian
Posts: 6,593

Rep: Reputation: 2816Reputation: 2816Reputation: 2816Reputation: 2816Reputation: 2816Reputation: 2816Reputation: 2816Reputation: 2816Reputation: 2816Reputation: 2816Reputation: 2816
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
Ah, so there was no gap, no jump from 4 to 7. Another myth shattered...
Interesting indeed. I always thought there was a gap as well. Thanks for the clarification, niels.horn.
13.0 is coming.

Last edited by hitest; 06-08-2009 at 09:35 AM.
 
Old 06-08-2009, 08:00 AM   #51
sycamorex
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: London
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 5,836
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
Ah, so there was no gap, no jump from 4 to 7. Another myth shattered...
No, please don't continue this thread. My whole belief system was based on the above mentioned gap. We will soon learn that there's no Santa or Tux, huh?
 
Old 06-08-2009, 08:19 AM   #52
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.2 & current
Posts: 7,914
Blog Entries: 59

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Yes, it's turned my world uʍop əpısdn as well.
 
Old 06-08-2009, 10:28 AM   #53
mostlyharmless
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2008
Distribution: Arch/Knoppix
Posts: 1,823
Blog Entries: 14

Rep: Reputation: 282Reputation: 282Reputation: 282
And yet there is this: http://www.slackware.com/faq/do_faq.php?faq=general#0

Quote:
Q: Why the jump from 4 to 7?

The following was posted to the Slackware.com Forum by Patrick Volkerding (Slackware Project Lead), at 21:43 10-10-1999.

I've stayed out of this for now, but I do think I should lend a little justification to the version number thing.

First off, I think I forgot to count some time ago. If I'd started on 6.0 and made every release a major version (I think that's how Linux releases are made these days, right? , we would be on Slackware 47 by now. (it would actually be in the 20s somewhere if we'd gone 1, 2, 3...)

I think it's clear that some other distributions inflated their version numbers for marketing purposes, and I've had to field (way too many times) the question "why isn't yours 6.x" or worse "when will you upgrade to Linux 6.0" which really drives home the effectiveness of this simple trick. With the move to glibc and nearly everyone else using 6.x now, it made sense to go to at least 6.0, just to make it clear to people who don't know anything about Linux that Slackware's libraries, compilers, and other stuff are not 3 major versions behind. I thought they'd all be using 7.0 by now, but no matter. We're at least "one better", right?

Sorry if I haven't been enough of a purist about this. I promise I won't inflate the version number again (unless everyone else does again
 
Old 06-08-2009, 02:01 PM   #54
niels.horn
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 1,004

Rep: Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostlyharmless View Post
I know about this explanation in the FAQ

If you take a look at the "release dates" of the versions between 4 and 7, you can see that they are more or less "forced". They weren't really released as versions (there were even two versions released in one day, some only a few days apart).

At the time I did not follow the ChangeLog daily, so I do not know if these "release dates" were actually inserted later, to explain the jump from 4 to 7.
I *think* that the current Slackware team (Robby, Eric, etc...) - except for Patrick of course - was not involved with Slackware at that time, I do remember some other names from those days. But maybe one of the "older" Slackware fans has better memories

But these dates are from the ChangeLog that is on my Slackware 7.0 CD (which is not original, I burned the disc at some time after downloading it, don't remember exactly when.)

If you Google for Slackware 7.0 you can find some mirrors still carrying it and download the ChangeLog
 
Old 06-08-2009, 02:25 PM   #55
Lufbery
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2006
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Distribution: Slackware 64 14.0
Posts: 1,170
Blog Entries: 29

Rep: Reputation: 132Reputation: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by sycamorex View Post
numlock daemon can possess your soul
Already happened.
 
Old 06-08-2009, 05:13 PM   #56
mRgOBLIN
Slackware Contributor
 
Registered: Jun 2002
Location: New Zealand
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 999

Rep: Reputation: 230Reputation: 230Reputation: 230
Those version bumps in the changelog were never actually official releases and the entry in the FAQ is pretty much the way it went down.

Distrowatch has a fairly comprehensive list of releases and dates here.
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=slackware
Also a collection of articles going back to 2001 (for you history buffs).
 
Old 06-08-2009, 05:55 PM   #57
niels.horn
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 1,004

Rep: Reputation: 90
It all depends on what you call an "official release"

They were never released on CD, I know. But neither were some obscure releases like 8.1.01 (one day after 8.1, according to the ChangeLog).
Or some older versions, like 1.2.0.1 / 1.2.0.2 / 1.2.0.3, all "released" in April 1994.
But at some moment Pat decided to call them "releases".

The (lucky?) individual who downloaded the complete distribution on August 20th, 1999, would have a Slackware version with "5.0.0" in the /etc//etc/slackware-version file.

I should have paid more attention in those days

(I am a Slackware-follower since 3.1 and have all releases since then and some older ones I found on the internet...)
 
Old 06-08-2009, 06:28 PM   #58
mRgOBLIN
Slackware Contributor
 
Registered: Jun 2002
Location: New Zealand
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 999

Rep: Reputation: 230Reputation: 230Reputation: 230
If I remember correctly there were no 8.1 cd's pressed (what I refer to as an official release). There was an apache bug that was published the day after 8.1 was announced so 8.1.01 was sent to the replicators as an official release(to replace the 8.1 images).
 
Old 06-08-2009, 07:38 PM   #59
niels.horn
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 1,004

Rep: Reputation: 90
ok, that explains the 8.1.01 release...

You remembered correctly:
Code:
----------------------------
Wed Jun 19 07:02:39 PDT 2002
Slackware 8.1.01-stable is released.
a/sysvinit-2.84-i386-19.tgz:  Added -M to fix quotacheck for reiserfs.
d/cvs-1.11.2-i386-2.tgz:  Added docs in text format.
n/apache-1.3.26-i386-1.tgz:  Upgraded to apache-1.3.26.
  This fixes the issue described in:
  "CERT Advisory CA-2002-17 Apache Web Server Chunk Handling Vulnerability"
  While the impact of this issue is minimal on 32 bit Linux systems, we felt it
  was important enough to stop the presses and get these fixes in before sending
  the Slackware 8.1 discs in for replication.
  (* Security fix *)
n/mod_ssl-2.8.9_1.3.26-i386-1.tgz:  Upgraded to mod_ssl-2.8.9_1.3.26.
rootdisks/rescue.dsk:  Added network/pcmcia scripts.
----------------------------
Tue Jun 18 10:47:47 PDT 2002
Slackware 8.1-stable is released!  :-)
----------------------------
I did not check the "8.1" CD I have but it probably is the 8.1.01 version I guess

I didn't have a subscription in those days. I had one during the 3.3 to 4.0 days, until the exchange-rate for the dollar exploded in Brazil. For some time I had to survive with downloaded .iso files and mirrored ftp sites.

From your knowledge I understand you've been involved with Slackware for some time now - and do have a better memory than I have

And yes, I do have a subscription again
 
Old 06-09-2009, 03:46 AM   #60
mRgOBLIN
Slackware Contributor
 
Registered: Jun 2002
Location: New Zealand
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 999

Rep: Reputation: 230Reputation: 230Reputation: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by niels.horn View Post
From your knowledge I understand you've been involved with Slackware for some time now - and do have a better memory than I have
Yes I guess you could say I've been around for a while.

I used to be a regular on the original Slackware forums and moved them over to Userlocal.com and maintained them until LQ was well under way.

Not so sure about that memory part though
 
  


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
Bash scripting "skip to"? WingnutOne Linux - Newbie 4 09-25-2007 03:00 PM
Tip for non-Power Users: Moving from "less" directly into an editor rickh Linux - General 1 10-11-2006 10:16 AM
ABIT "KN8 ultra" chipset "NFORCE4" & Slack 10.2 k6_400 Slackware 5 09-06-2006 06:13 PM
KDE 3.2 Print Problem "File Format is not directly supported" forgox Debian 0 09-22-2004 09:07 PM
How to skip "Resume From Disk"? thas Linux - Laptop and Netbook 2 09-21-2003 06:30 PM

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

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:15 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
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration