We were chatting in this thread about the next release of slackware, when Toth pointed out that the changelog gave hints as to a 10.0 release

I went of to study the ChangeLog for -current, and saw this:

Now it is totally up to Patrick what version he calls Slackware, but didn't this happen in the past with slackware 4 - "Why the jump from 4 to 7?"

Do you think that distros inflate this numbers intentionally to try and make Distro 10.2 > OtherDistro 10.1 ?

Maybe it'd be better having names/dates for these versions?

What do you think?

Steve

What is the nature of your interest about slackware version number ?

There's are major version changes in both KDE and Gnome, & IMO that warrants calling it version 10 instead of 9.2 or whatever. I hope it's called Slackware X, I think it has a nice ring to it.

In general, I'm not a fan of version bumping just to match version numbers of other distributions.

However, the bump from 9.1 to 10.0 makes sense. Look at 8.1 to 9.0: that included a major bump in GCC, an upgrade to XFree86, a major bump for GNOME (1.4 to 2.2) and a major bump for KDE. Then look at 9.0 to 9.1. The only major upgrade was GNOME 2.2 to 2.4. Most of the other upgrades (KDE, etc.) were minor. No major change in GCC or XFree86.

Now look at -current. XFree86 has been dropped in favor of X.org (as well as essentially a major version bump), GCC has seen a major version bump as well as both KDE and GNOME. Also, better support for 2.6 series kernels (udev, sysfs), and the possibility that a 2.6 kernel might be an option at install time (I highly doubt it'll be the default if it's even an option). Slackware 10.0 makes sense.

I do think it would have been better had he not skipped from version 4 to version 7, but it's just a number anyway and completely up to him.

I would like to see him drop down to v. 5 since that hasn't been used yet. That would sow confusion amongst the masses. But that isn't likely. Pat made it clear when the oldest existing version of linux has a version of 4 and all the newcomer competitors are at 7, he will jump to make a point that they are being stupid. So he will continue to keep up I would assume.

Yeh I was thinking that, Slackware X would sound nice but I seriously doubt it'd happen. I guess the jump to 10 is warranted, but I still would prefer names rather than numbers - maybe they should call the next slackware:

Slackware Shrike (or not...)

:)

Steve

Switching to roman numerals would actually be pretty cool

Slackware X, X.1, XI, XI.1, etc.

How about Slackware N+1 Where N+1 is always equal to the correct and most appealing version number? :P

I'd agree with that. It would set itself apart from the other distros out there. 8.0, 8.2 etc is all well and good but seems a little dull. And debian's naming convention is (to me) a little confuzzling.

Maybe its just me, but slack does seem to be a little lacking in the "image" department. Don't get me wrong, I love slack and (probably) wouldn't go with anything else, but at the same time I'd love to see my fav. distro get a bit of an image make-over. Redhat has the red hat, gentoo has the big G, SuSE has the lizard, Mandrake has the star-thingy and the play on the penguin, and slack... well... its one of the major distros but hasn't been "sexed up". Shame, really.

LOL, just imagine; "Slackware X (Mac-style aqua globe with pair of khaki trousers being held up by crossed braces to simulate the X)". Now that would be something!

On second thought, X, X.1, X.2, XI, XI.1 would be kind of confusing.

X, XI, XII, XIII, would be better....or maybe X release 1, X release 2, XI release 1, XI release 2, XI release 3, etc.

Meh, I've come to the conclusion I'm putting entirely too much thought into this

edit: and not nearly enough thought into spell checking

NB: Slack has the Propoganda page with lots of logos. Slackware has the Church of the Subgenius head J.R. "Bob" Dobbs. Also, the pipe is used with Tux.

Ours go up to 11.

Seriously - if anybody's 10 (and they are) Slack could be 11. Flipside, yeah, I'd prefer if no one had bumped any numbers anywhere.

Really, though, I agree with those who point to the significant version changes in a number of significant apps as the key - I'd consider 9.2 artificially holding back the number the way it sounds.

It's just a number. All I care about is that it's released and is genuine Slackware quality. Now, please.

As long as Pat doesn't call it Slackware 10 Pro (Slack XP).

I agree with Xavier, what could be sexier than Bob.

The Slackware eXPerience!