I am wondering how long each release is supported with bug-fixes, etc. For example, if I install the 12.1 release on a server how long before that release is no longer supported with security patches and I am forced to upgrade?

Thanks.

Did you check on the Slackware website?

I'm still getting patches for 10.1, which my server runs.

If you subscribe to the slackware-security mailing list, you will notice that critical bug fixes are still being released as patches to Slackware dating back as far as release 8.1.
The latest patch for slackware-8.1 was /patches/packages/libpng-1.2.27-i386-1_slack8.1.tgz dated 29 april 2008.

Eric

Eric,

Thank you for the response. Slackware 8.1 was released ~June 19, 2002, so that would mean security related patches are coming out almost six years later. That sounds great.

However, can I assume by your response that there is no official support cycle? I figured that if there was one you would have pointed me to it.

There is no official support cycle. This is not Slackware Enterprise Linux. It is purely a matter of man power.

Eric

Agreed. But many non-enterprise open-source projects have chosen to specify life-cycle commitments. I was simply wondering if Pat had done the same with Slackware. Apparently not, so thank you for answering my question.

Its too bad that the quality of technology alone isn't a viable business model. If it was, then I am sure Slackware Enterprise Linux (SlackEL) would be a hit.

Thanks again.

There are pros and cons in not specifying a life-cycle..especially if it comes down to "we must make a new release today even though things don't work, and we were working on an important security fix for the last release but it's going to take a little more time and today it's not supported so let's leave it at that". I find the Slackware way good too (not blaming the others either, though), as long as it keeps going -- as long as there is manpower there.

Remember that without a good amount of Slackware CD/DVD subscriptions, it will be hard to keep maintaining and developing Slackware. I do not get any money out of Slackware, and neither do the others in the core team (we all pay our own subscription fee even) but for Pat it is his only source of income. All those Slackware forks (or 'parasites' as I called them in another thread) take away from the flow of money to Slackware, Inc. without ever giving back to Slackware. It's this one-way process that makes me call them 'parasites'. It would be a pity if Slackware ever runs out of business because of lack of income.

Eric

Eric, you make a good point, makes me want to go donate again ........tomorrows payday, we'll see.

Personally, I think the Slackware "support life cycle" for lack of a better term, and the work done by Pat and the Slackware Security Team, is a woefully underappreciated aspect of Slackware. As Eric pointed out, there are updates still being pushed out for Slackware 8.1 -- a six year old release. That is true "Long Term Support" if you ask me!

I think for the most part 'End-Of-Life-Policy' just doesn't have any meaning here.

So would Zenwalk be considered a parasite ? If so, then if this parasite did not exist I would not be using Slackware at this time. This is because Zenwalk led me to Slackware. It would have taken me much longer to actually find and use Slackware without Zenwalk, Slax, etc.

So, although you do have a point in that Slackware cannot exist without donations, the term 'parasite' is not correct here.

Furthermore, other distros like RedHat EL, make money by offering support to their customers at a price. Wouldn't that be a good idea in Slackware's case ? I know Slackware is used in lots of different ways and by people who have lots of money. Surely they will give some back, as long as a more concrete service is provided to them. Just an idea ...

Personally I have very high regard for Zenwalk. It's the distro I now recommend for my friends who are newbies to Linux. It's Slackware under the hood but has some nice automation for the Windows folks, and it doesn't take much to nudge someone from Zenwalk to Slackware.

Hi,

I really don't think that a fork will take away any money from Slackware. If the user is introduced to Slackware via a fork and that same user decides to use Slackware because of his/her experience with the fork. Then Slackware will benefit if that same user does donate or purchase from Slackware. The Slackware user base will increase via this path. That same user may even expand the user base by recommendation to friends of his new Slackware installation.

Exposure to Slackware would be the best or right thing but not everyone is willing to spend the time or effort to get the OS up and running. Even with support here on LQ, a lot of the distro bunnies move to something else. So if a GUI based fork of Slackware gets someone to use Slackware at some later date then that benefits the user and Slackware.

I suppose upstream projects should, by that logic, consider Pat to be a parasite. I disagree with your logic and your invective.