Enabling the root user in Ubuntu takes, what?, 5 seconds or less?

I'm trying to figure out why the OP thinks Slack is "outdated". It's easy enough to upgrade any part of the OS to the most bleeding edge software out there.

A lot of people complain about Slackware being out dated. This is most likely due to Slackware's emphasis on "true and tested" over "latest and greatest". Generally, nothing goes into Slackware by default, that hasn't had time to be tested and deemed stable. While some people (such as myself) love this feature, others are looking to get something else out of Linux. In my opinion, I would like my distro to only install tested and stable software and leave it up to me to muck up my computer with the latest developmental software releases. It's just a matter of preference though.

regards,
...drkstr

I have to disagree with most of that. Slackware is not "tried and true" it is, "pat puts in only the packages that pat himself is familiar with, because he hates change, even if the change is beneficial to every single person in every single possible way".


That is probably why the OP wants something more up-to-date than slackware. 2.4 kernel is absurd for example, as of 2.6.16, 2.6>2.4 in every single way including stability, including server usage, and including desktop performance. The reason it is not included is not because it isn't "true and tested", because by far it is, but it is because pat is not very familiar with it, or it's dependencies like the newer Udev releases.

This whole "old=stable" thing bugs the hell out of me. It's no where near true. Old software is not automatically more stable than new software. If old software truely was more stable than new software, developers would just stop updating their software. Old software is nothing but older. Old software has fewer features, performs worse, has more security holes, lower compatibility, and yes, it is usually more buggy.

That is why software is updated in the first place. To fix issues that were in the old software versions.

Putting that in quotes doesn't add legitimacy. I've seen similar criticisms here before, that somehow Patrick Volkerding is not bright enough, or can't keep up, or just hates change. Look, you just disagree with him. Mature people don't use disagreements as an excuse to demean people. Build some addons for Slackware, use Dropline Gnome, or switch distributions. Life goes on.

This is boring. I already responded to this after one of your posts on another thread. The 2.6 kernel IS included. You just install using the test26.s kernel and then use installpkg for the modules. Is it the name that bothers you? It works fine. Somehow I doubt that this is beyond your skill level... you're just adjusting the facts to fit an argument that doesn't stand on its own.

FYI: OP=thewonka

And, in post #4, thewonka makes it plain that what is wanted is a distro that psycically produces exactly what is desired with zero effort or thought ... which is kinda odd for a slackware buff. I've come to associate slack folk with intellegence and hard work.

On another tack: while 2.6 > 2.4 mathematically, this is not always the case in terms of kernels. Generally, one should be selectng kernels based on functionality and projected use. The 2.4 series seems to be inherently more stable than the 2.6 series - but because Marcelo is interested in stability while Linus calls it "boring". (Though I may be a little out of date there. My understanding is that Linus feels that stability is secondary as it is boring and distro's add their own patches anyway. So why not leave the final - stabilising - tweaking up to the distro developers?)

Distros which emphasise the 2.4 by default always always always have the option to install the 2.6 somehow ... and even if they didn't officially, it is always possible to install whichever kernel you want.

<rant>
Now for folk who just want a desktop to tootle around in, I could understand the complaints. You'd want a distro which hold your hand. But for a slackware buff to complain about needing to work a bit to gain stuff he wants??? Is this really what slackware is coming to?</rant>

whew! Better out than in ...

I dont get the whole, 2.4 is more stable than 2.6 or vice versa. A stable kernel is a stable kernel. There are buggy versions of 2.4 and buggy versions of 2.6.

Pat chooses kernels that work well with slackware. If they work well and have been tested, then he will use them. The concept that he is supposed to setup and test every single kernel and make it available with slackware is absurd. I manage a few slackware servers. I set them up and they all use 2.4. Why, 2.4.31 is stable and supports the hardware. If 2.6 was needed I would a use a stable version of 2.6.

While I agree that old != stable, tested does.

Slackware does not have a team with a huge budget (*cough*, RedHat, Ubuntu), it does provide a stable OS, that works well. If you want a system that gets updated daily, pick another one. I watch what updates come out. If its a security update(for an app in use), I update the system.

What it all boils down to is choice. If you don't like slackware, pick something else, stop complaining, and move on with your life. I here ubuntuforums.org needs some educated posters.


Soule

This is in general. 2.4 in "inherently" more stable in the same way that linux is "inherently" more secure than windows. There are unsecure linux installations, and very secure windows installations.

Your point about "tested" is the critical one. Less work has gone into making the 2.6 series releases stable because it is well known that distributors (like Pat) will put the effort in themselves. (However, one of the appeals of the 2.4 series may be that distributors are likely to have to put less work into making sure the kernel is stable.)

This does not mean that 2.4.xy is garanteed more stable than 2.6.wz.