I agree that it's unlikely. The only reason could be the stability issues with 2.6.x. But the developers are aware of that and hopefully the issues will be resolved by then.

We shall see what we shall see ...

All in all, it really doesn't matter much whether or not the default kernel is 2.4 or 2.6. It's easy enough to install 2.6 from /testing after the fact.

Perhaps you could run a poll

Which kernel do you use?

1. 2.4 Because it's default
2. 2.4 Because it's stable
3. 2.6 From testing
4. 2.6 Compiled

or something along those lines.

maybe it's also about the stuff around the kernel. perhaps a lot of obsolete stuff could be removed if there was a 2.6 kernel only. just wondering...

I object to "2.4 because its stable", the 2.6.16 tree has been more stable for me recently.
Just looking at the 2.4.33rc2 changelog will give you some clues why 2.4.32 is buggy.

i assume you're using the media definition of stability... in that case, your experience is totally subjective, and other people have *definitely* had opposite experiences...

i am not saying that 2.6 doesn't run better for you than 2.4, i'm just saying that just because it does so for *you* doesn't mean it's the best choice for *slackware* as the default kernel...

using the original definition of stability, 2.4 is WAY more stable than 2.6 (yes, even the 2.6.16 tree), that's pretty factual, not a matter of opinion (once again, using the original definition)... and that's arguably why patrick is still sticking with 2.4, even though i'm sure there have been many 2.6 fanboys spamming his inbox with "2.6 is stable and should be default" type of messages...

you do realize that 2.4.32 was released last year in mid november, right?? a fair comparison would be between the 2.4.33-rc* changelog and the sum of all changelogs since the release of 2.6.16.1 a little over 3 months ago (currently at 2.6.16.23, ahem)... geez, i even remember a day when there were like two or three 2.6.16.* kernel releases in ONE DAY - how's _that_ for stability??

honestly, it doesn't really matter to me what version patrick chooses to make default - it's not a contest, and either way, i'll be compiling a custom config of the version that works best for me, as a _lot_ of slackers do...

Yo! Stability ... seems I gave that up to run -current ... so when 11.0 comes out, my workstation and the 4 other -current boxen will stay there ... only the test box gets anything from -current. Funny thing, I can find the bugs by things breaking, but don't know enough yet to find what and where they are, so that I can send a good bug report to Pat V.

but if you've already determined that it's a slackware problem and not an upstream problem, then that's a pretty good start i think... i don't think everyone that sends bug reports to patrick knows all the details about the issue they're reporting... if things are broken in current, a heads-up to patrick is good idea either way, no??

of course if the problem is upstream then it would suck to bother patrick about it, unless it's to let him know that a patch is out or something...

I've been reading the intel changelog for current for many weeks and Patrick has posted changes twice per week, regular as clockwork.
Today marks one full week that no changes have been posted:-)

http://www.slackware.com/changelog/current.php?cpu=i386

I think 11.0 may be coming........at some point:-)

just curious: anyone know if patrick and marcelo keep in touch??

Therein lies the problem ... all I know is that I "installpkg" Patrick's Slackpacks, so to me, it's a Slackware -current problem.

2.6.16.x is the new "2.4 stable"
Both are reasonably bug free, but 2.4.32 is aged.
The Slackware issues seem to be partly related to the infrastructure around the kernel - hotblug/udev/hal/dbus for which Pat must be having a lot of problems supporting both kernels.
Look at what is going into 2.6.18, over 2000 changes, largely because alsa, jfs and a few others are merging in. - That is a really drastic change.

just to add for those who are curious. I asked Pat for the next Slackware 11.0 and here is the answers:

???

JFS & ALSA have both been in the kernel for ages.

Maybe they're just receiving big updates?