SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Even though PatV wisely waited before "upgrading" KDE from v3 to v4, IMHO Plasma 5 as of Eric's May KTown performs much better than did the initial inclusion of KDE v4 into Slackware. It's ready from my POV. BTW equating PAM with systemd is akin to equating a pet cat with a bobcat. PAM is nowhere near as intrusive and is optional. Like a "pet" Bobcat, systemd shits all over the house, forces the previous owners to sign a Quit Claim Deed, and then eats the occupants. Seriously guys, paranoia may destroy ya.
Aside from such nonsense I'd actually like to see rEFInd included in Extra, not that it is at all difficult to build from Slackbuilds... just nice to have at Install time.
EDIT: Sorry about the flubbed key typo. I fixed spastic "v3 to v5" now.
Last edited by enorbet; 05-25-2020 at 11:01 AM.
Reason: typo fixed
It's worth noting that RHEL makes a major release about every five years, with minor releases (updates, really) about every eight or nine months.
By comparison, Slackware releases are pretty rapid -- its major/minor releases are equivalent to RHEL major releases (with new kernel, libraries, etc) and its updates are much more frequent (about twice a week for 14.2).
To someone accustomed to a "rolling release" like Ubuntu, it must seem excruciatingly slow, but Ubuntu breaks itself all the time. I'd much rather have a stable operating system than a churny one.
It's worth noting that RHEL makes a major release about every five years, with minor releases (updates, really) about every eight or nine months.
By comparison, Slackware releases are pretty rapid -- its major/minor releases are equivalent to RHEL major releases (with new kernel, libraries, etc) and its updates are much more frequent (about twice a week for 14.2).
Indeed. Debian has a major release once every two years. It's likely that our release will come in at well under 5 years. I have a hard time understanding the hysteria surrounding our current release cycle. Slackware 15.0 will arrive.
It's an understandable concern. RHEL is for servers. Slackware is for both, servers and desktops. Desktop users do need somewhat more rapid releases, and there is demand now for features which just aren't available under 14.2, like support for recent GPUs.
Even RedHat recognizes that, which is why Fedora releases on a much more aggressive schedule (and breaks from time to time).
Desktop users do need somewhat more rapid releases, and there is demand now for features which just aren't available under 14.2, like support for recent GPUs.
True. I moved to Slackware64-current a few years ago. If you are comfortable with the occasional hiccup and daily updates then -current may be for you.
It's worth noting that RHEL makes a major release about every five years, with minor releases (updates, really) about every eight or nine months.
By comparison, Slackware releases are pretty rapid -- its major/minor releases are equivalent to RHEL major releases (with new kernel, libraries, etc) and its updates are much more frequent (about twice a week for 14.2).
To someone accustomed to a "rolling release" like Ubuntu, it must seem excruciatingly slow, but Ubuntu breaks itself all the time. I'd much rather have a stable operating system than a churny one.
In fact, those "minor releases" of RHEL are the equivalent of the "minor releases" of Slackware, like is 14.2 for example, BUT in the RHEL case, they are shipped at around eight months distance.
So, if Slackware behaved really like RHEL, since the major release of 14.0 in the year of 2012, should had been released every year a new minor release, with updated installer, kernel, etc. Today we should have been using the Slackware 14.8 at least.
However, still we compare RHEL - a Linux distribution guaranteed to work in business or critical environments, with one which is shipped with no guarantees: Slackware.
However, still we compare RHEL - a Linux distribution guaranteed to work in business or critical environments, with one which is shipped with no guarantees: Slackware.
Red Hat is an international company that had revenue of 3.4 billion in 2019; it is a monster.
Red Hat has a ton of support behind it. Slackware has one maintainer and volunteer developers. I prefer Slackware and I will stick with it. Slackware 15.0 will arrive.
Those of us running plasma5 and xfce4.14 and pamified -current will keep right on doin' so and won't much care if there is any such thing as 15.0 stable...
Red Hat has a ton of support behind it. Slackware has one maintainer and volunteer developers.
That's exactly why comparing Slackware with RHEL makes as much sense like comparing a handmade wood yacht for 10, with a nuclear powered aircraft carrier from Gerald R. Ford Class ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitest
I prefer Slackware and I will stick with it.
I sincerely doubt that you, or me, we are targeted customers for RHEL...
Last edited by LuckyCyborg; 05-25-2020 at 09:40 AM.
In fact, those "minor releases" of RHEL are the equivalent of the "minor releases" of Slackware,
No, the so-called minor releases of RHEL are like Service Packs in Windows, they offer a bundled set of bug- and security fixes, but no real enhancements or updated packages (unless really UNescapable, like for firefox).
For instance RHEL (and thus CentOS) 7 is still using the 3.10 kernel (with a lot of backported fixes and some hardware enhancements) and RHEL 8 is using the 4.18 kernel, which is EOL too at kernel.org (so the RHEL staff have to do their own backports).
So not comparable to the 14.1 to 14.2 upgrade of Slackware:
RHEL 7 is essentially from 2014 and there were 8 "point updates" till now,
RHEL 8 is a year old and has had 2
Quote:
should had been released every year a new minor release, with updated installer, kernel,
As I said, NO updated kernel, just a new set of backported patches FOR it.
ehartman is 100% right. Every Slackware minor release has an entirely new kernel, major version changes for libraries and new features, which makes them entirely comparable to RHEL's major releases.
ehartman is 100% right. Every Slackware minor release has an entirely new kernel, major version changes for libraries and new features, which makes them entirely comparable to RHEL's major releases.
Really, that does not matter, because like I said, we compare apples with bananas. Or wooden yachts with nuclear battle ships.
ehartman is 100% right. Every Slackware minor release has an entirely new kernel, major version changes for libraries and new features, which makes them entirely comparable to RHEL's major releases.
Yes, but to clarify, this only applies to slackware-current, slackware64-current the "beta" version of Slackware Linux.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.