Patrick Volkerding has just released Slackware 11 RC4. Take a look at the changelog for more info.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-12-15
Member since:
2005-07-09
Member since:
2005-06-29
Patrick is unfazed by our anticipation for the Slackware 11.0 release. When it reaches a solid level of stability only then will he kick it out the door. I have checked his change logs nearly everyday for the past few months and his rebuilding process is slow but complete. Picture someone eating a bowl of rice one rice kernel at a time. How long can you watch before you just get up and walk away.
Member since:2006-04-21
Member since:2005-06-29
More than that, he's done something that many other distros with entire committees have failed to do: Make a consistently stable distro that is easy to install and maintain. Everyone always compares Slackware to the BSDs and Unix in general for stability, but Slackware has the bonus of being user-friendly without breaking that stability. I'm not into hero-worship by any means, but I would consider Pat to be the role model for any project manager out there.
Member since:2005-11-13
Everyone always compares Slackware to the BSDs and Unix in general for stability, but Slackware has the bonus of being user-friendly without breaking that stability.
Ok, Xandros and Linspire are user friendly - Slackware is not. There is a reason why the Slackware derivative (can't remember which) likened its user friendliness to a coiled rattlesnake.
That being said, once you do learn it, it becomes pretty simple and stays that way, because it doesn't change a whole lot over the years, which is a good thing.
Member since:2006-06-19
Member since:2005-11-13
Not user friendly....more familiar. Learn something that is different and it will be "user friendly" too.
I define user friendly as something you can pick up on simply by looking at it. That ain't Slackware 
Granted, that doesn't mean the just because something is user friendly doesn't mean that it's easier to use than something that's harder to learn, yet much more efficient once you get a handle on it.
Member since:2006-06-19
I define user friendly as something you can pick up on simply by looking at it.
I might could live with that definition. But I would argue that the definiton leaves out every operating system that exists. Only if somoene has used a OS, watched people use a OS, or at least read about a OS are they able to actually use a OS.
Member since:2006-04-21
Member since:2005-06-29
I guess I should have clarified...I meant Slackware is user-friendly compared to the BSDs and commercial Unix. In the purely Linux world, Slackware is definitely for intermediate-to-advanced users. It's also a good distro for the beginner who wants to broaden his understanding of the technology under the GUI hood without being completely overwhelmed.
Member since:2006-08-24
Slackware is the only self-contained, deeply thought distribution out there. (that I know of)
Curses (actually dialog) interface, which save time to the developer so he can concentrate on the code itself, avoidance of all waste-of-time-and-money features such as boot splash screens, etc.
And very nice add-ons (checkinstall, etc) which work flawlessly.
Patrick sees clearly when everyone is confused. Ditching gnome was a smart move, since it is available as an add-on. Keeping everything under control is another one. Packing Netscape 7.2 a while ago when Mozilla was not ready yet was a sign of a practical man.
Slackware would not exist as it is now if Patrick worked with a large group.
Lots of people help, but he is in-charge.
I would only wish that he could pack the ICC and IFORT compilers. FreeBSD does it.
Finally, Slackware is VERY user-friendly. More than SUSE, for example. All you have to do is read.
If you know how to read, then Slackware is for you.
You have VERY well written books available for free. The Slackware book itself, but also nice others such as
http://shilo.is-a-geek.com/
and also
http://www.slackbasics.org/
Finally: Slackware doesn't change what works for the sake of it. It worked in 1997, why shouldn't work now?
Member since:2006-06-19
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-11-12
Member since:
2005-12-18
From the changelog ...
I wasn't planning a Slackware 11.0 release candidate 4, but here we go.
a/kernel-ide-2.4.33.3-i486-1.tgz:
Upgraded to Linux 2.4.33.3 sata.i kernel.
I wonder why the slackware team is shying from using the 2.6 kernel and sticking to the 2.4. As far as kernel is concerned, the newer the better - or is it ???
And more over, it has been over a year since 2.6 kernel has been released.
Member since:2005-06-29
If you look back through major version changelogs, you'll see that Pat is wary of jumping headlong into new territory, especially where the kernel and major system packages are concerned. His focus seems to be on stability and security first, features after. Kernel 2.6 has indeed been around for a while, but it is still under heavy development and I doubt it will replace 2.4 as the default in Slackware until Slackware 12 at the least. Kernel 2.4 is mature and very stable at this point, and I'm going to continue to use it as my default with a 2.6 installed for testing. Once I personally feel 2.6 is ready for primetime, I'll go with it on my box (likely well before it is default in the official release), and thanks to Pat it will be very easy to do this.
Member since:
2005-12-18
Member since:2006-06-19
I know it is F$%%$ing insane isn't it! Crazy! Illogical! You must be right.....oh wait.
If that is all linux is about then would anyone be making a distro? And would Pat still be doing it ever since he started over ten years ago? Could it be about something else besides just money?
Software is a very important part of our life and how we progress in so many ways. Don't you think you should have access to that or should we leave it up to companies to manage our innovation and progress?
Member since:2006-04-21
RE[2]: OT: Stallman GPL
RE[3]: OT: Stallman GPL
Member since:2006-04-28
GPL (and free software in general) is not evil in any way, though it might well be ahead of it's time and therefor seem like a weird (ill?) exception.
However, it's not about money, but about freedom. A programmer can still charge you $300 for programming something for you even if the final code is released under a free license.
What if a doctor finds a cure for some cancer of for AIDS and refuses to share it and charges $30000 for it to patients? Do you thing that's GOOD because he can earn money with his innovation? What abou those who can't pay for it? Not to mention that it would have been impossible for him to find that cure if not for ALL the work during years and centuries of other people. His innovation would be surely based on other's innvation.
Life's about sharing, and Free Software promotes sharing. The fact that other industries don't share alike doesn't mean that Free Software is ill.
And please don't say that without patents there would be no innovation because it's been like that for centuries before patents and we've done fine.
RE[3]: OT: Stallman GPL
Member since:2006-06-19
Trying to attack something that a person does not obviously understand is pretty pointless because it comes across as just that...
RMS has said that what goes for software does not apply to every industry or occupation. Software is unique in that it is not truly a NEED at all yet it is something that affects us all. THAT is truly unique wouldn't you say? And you want that left to corporations?
Member since:
2006-08-09
CrazyDudeO to CuriosityKills: "Thank you."
The internet is a free place (so far), you don't have to thank anyone for agreeing. 
I won't suggest that behind these two names there's one and the same person, as Curiosity's "real name" seems to be "Dude", so leave it at that, and anyway it doesn't matter.
But it does seem the Dude is pretty desparate. Why do you fear the GPL so much that you think it's going to put you out of business? If that's really what you fear, I respect that. But why worry? As you said, if you can't find "GPL"developers because noone pays them (fiction), you'll make bad software and the proprietary software will be better and sell better (may well be fiction, too).
The problem could be here in this quote of yours: "If software engineers can't make much money,..." . It's the word much here that seems to be the key. If just enough money isn't enough, if it has to be a lot all the time, go invest in some hedge fund and whine over caviar prices with the shareholders.
I can't imagine any programmer freak, you know the people that write the greatest code, to be in it just for the money. You know, Mozart wrote the crap for the money, and the greatest stuff for fun. Rather, people that really love programming share code to be helped so they can enjoy their own programs faster. They'll keep programming even if they won't get paid.
But they are.
Let's get back to topic.
Member since:2005-07-09
Member since:
2006-08-27
Member since:
2006-06-26
Member since:2006-04-28
Yes, manpower is one reason for Gnome not being supported by Slackware.
By the time support was dropped, there were other third parties also providing Gnome for Slackware users and doing a good job at it. So Pat Volkerding probably thought that it was unnecessary to keep dedicating more than half of his time to Gnome while others were already doing it good enough.
So really, why do you need it in the distro itself and not from a third party? What makes the difference for you?
Member since:2005-07-18
Member since:
2006-01-01
Member since:
2006-01-03
Member since:
2005-07-28