It's supposed to be a secret, so don't spread it around: sometime in the future.
slackroflmfao??? How did you know that? Do you work for the NSA?

Considering that the adoption of SystemD will involve recompiling and changing half the system probably Slackware Linux 14.1 will be the last Linux version ever, after which will follow Slackware BSD 1.0...

1 members found this post helpful.

We never saw Slackware 5 and 6, thus this shall be starting as Slackware BSD 5.0.

Regards.

I see this claim over and over again. Would you like to elaborate why using only the init capabilities of systemd would involve recompiling half of the system?

I think it is wrong to look at SystemD, just like a regular init system.

Yes, using only init support, the impact on the system will be minimal. Perhaps, will need to be adjusted the daemons scripts.

But what is SystemD, in fact, is a platform for management and instrumentation.

That provides all system services required. And honesty, I think it is a big step forward in the modernization of Linux, and eliminating the Linux distributions fragmentation.

As the kernel is common, this management and instrumentation platform allows simplification of Linux system stack and facilitates enormously the work of programmers.

But it will replace like init and udev, also PowerKit, ConsoleKit, PolKit, NetworkManager, ModemManager, etc... And these will be deprecated.

From my point of view, the situation is similar to the choice of staying in a 2.2.x kernel, while others have moved to 2.6.x.

You think that you can run Slackware 14.1 on top of kernel 2.4.x, today?

That comparison with kernel versions does not apply, and you know that. systemd (which is by the way the correct way of writing it, not systemD or even SystemD) is modular, you don't have to use all the components, so stating that in general you have to recompile half the system is at least hyperbole, if not plain wrong. There is no need to do that, which can clearly be seen when looking at bartgymnast's efforts.

Just out of curiosity: what happened on kernel 2.6?

Hey vdemuth, how's it going?

Hope all's well with you ... miss you ... the cat, especially, misses you: methinks she's losing fur.

Oh, and that old Dell Inspiron, the one with eSATA ...? Totally devastated.

Anyhow, just wanted to make sure you were keeping well and all, it's been a few days y'know ... I was kinda used to ya bein' round.

I'm feelin' kinda Tom Waits-y, like Heart of Saturday Night, or somethin'

cheers,

I am just installing cinelerra right now using sboinstall from sbotools package, and it solves all the dependencies problems. I don't now about installing time, but this method it's allmost as simple as "yum install" or "sudo apt-get install". I don't see a major difference.
In my experience the most stable linux I ever used until now is slackware. And I used OpenSuse (which is absolutely less stable then slackware), ubuntu, linux mint, fedora and vector linux (which indeed is very stable, but of course it's based on slackware). But in rest they are all buggy, and they crash often and very often in an irremediable way, but I can not say that about slackware.

If stability is your main concern I am quite surprised not to see Debian and CentOS/SL in your list.

That is becouse I never used Debian and CentOS/SL, but I've heard they are stable indeed. I belive stability must be the main concern when installing a new os. I mean, who doesn't want to use a system for a very long time without major stability isues?
Another reason might be only for the sake of testing something different, but that is allways a passing phase when bad things starts to happen.

It depends. For any given purpose of the machine in question you can always balance stability with for example new features to come to a point where you are comfortable. For example, stability is very important for my servers, they run 24/7 and provide essential services, so they should never be unstable. This is different on my main machine, where I run Slackware with an updated graphics stack, because that machine is also used for gaming. This may introduce instabilities into the system, but the benefits outweigh for me the risks.

In the above case it must be a comparation between linux systems in matter of stability, becouse in my case, everything I've done as a regular user, using graphics stacks in ubuntu or other distributions, I am doing in slackware either, but the difference is that slackware is more stable even for desktop users like me, comparing to the other distros I had.
The only inconvenience is that slackware it's harder to install and configure for regular use, as a desktop system then other distros, and this is good in some way...

I would say that the only difficult part about installing Slackware is partitioning your hard drive. Once your partitions are set up you just follow the prompts when you opt for a full install. Installing Slackware is straight forward if you read the provided manuals.

I see it the other way around. Slackware, due to its particularly simple package format and the help of Slackbuilds (the X11 Slackbuild is a masterpiece), makes it easier for me than in any other distro (except CRUX maybe) to build and install custom packages, even if that includes large parts of the graphics stack.

1 members found this post helpful.