200k to a kernel does not matter.... Especially when it is going to be a module...


XFS is not so great though. I've used it and it chokes up extensively on small files (less than 4MB or so) when compared to reiserfs or even ext3. But on large files it is very fast(But has VERY high cpu usage compared to the others, and JFS is faster anyway on large files)

Reiserfs is still a good default for a desktop system, and JFS for a server.

Don't get confused guys, JFFS and JFFS2 have been around since 2.4 kernels. JFS and JFFS are not the same thing.
http://sourceware.org/jffs2/

No one can upgrade to version 11.0 until I get fully up and running on slack 10.2 OKAY

I just came to slackware w/in past few weeks. I'm almost done...so don't leave me ...I need to get modem and fax going then you guys are allowed to upgrade.

What's weird is linuxpackages says they are taking pre-orders for it, but no release date.

I like Pat's ways of KISS, and stability b4 latest/greatest. Then again I dont own the latest/greatest so I am biased.

Hahhaa, ps my vote:

-open office out..it changes too much and ken zalewski at linuxpackages does nice job for me
-i use ext2 still, i'm afraid to do the ram disk stuff yet..and all that initrd stuff.
-yes keep kernels small i have old pc's and new and slack on all of em. 1 distro for many pc's woo hoo

amaroK is in current, and k3b is in extra/, and has been for a while.

There's no reason to keep using ext2 except for your /boot. Switching to ext3 or reiserfs will only increase your performance. If your hardware is older though, ext3 might be better than reiser.

Really? OK. It wasnt on my k-menu in KDE. Then again, neither was "ktorrent" or "kappfinder" either tho. Good to know thanks.

Oh ok. I'll try it out on one of my pc's that I dont care if I mess up. I really went with ext2 because when I first tried out Linux by live cd's from vector, mepis, and debian amongst others, many of them had said older pc's would have better performance with ext2, more tried and true one of them distro's called it. But your right I should get with the times.

Slackware does include 2.6.x kernel and xfs/jfs support.

If you choose to boot with the test26.s kernel when installing Slackware 10.2. You can choose to format your HD with ext2, ext3, reiserfs, xfs or jfs. You can also choose that kernel for your boot kernel too. When you boot for the first time you will see a lot of can't find modules, just install the kernel modules for 2.6.13 on the second cd, then reboot.

Yes, but it usually doesn't work.

I have installed with the 2.6 kernel about 6 times and it have worked everytime.

sounds like you've got a lot of experience with that.
did you inform the kernel-team that they are on the wrong track ?

I use 2.6 kernels since 2.6.4 and didn't see much problems.

egag

A few general questions:

1. How often is Slackware released? Is it updated roughly every 6 months or when the team feels like it?

2. How many people is actually on the Slackware team? Does Patrick Volkerding do all the work himself? I was told that Slackware was a one-man show, I was wondering if the statement was literal?

Wherefore should /boot be ext2 ?

I love the way you phrased that
You generally make /boot ext2 because there are so few files on it. ext3, XFS, JFS, etc. are all journaling file systems and are built to handle a large number of files. ext2 is not a journaling system so it works very well with a small number of files. ext2 is also old, tested, and well proven. You can use ext3, XFS, etc. on your /boot if you wish, but its overkill really.

Is it wrong? Since English is not my mother tongue, I can but learn.

Know, actually thats very right. Its just thats a odd way to phrase it. Sounds more like 16th century english than modern. In the U.S. we rarely use the word "wherefore." I'm sure you've learned British english in school though, so that probably explains it.