Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 06:14 UTC, submitted by Witold Wasilewski
Slackware, Slax Slackware 11.0 contains the 2.4.33.3 Linux kernel (default), 2.6.17.13 in /extra and 2.6.18 in the /testing directory. This Slackware version is by far the most cutting edge ever released, it includes KDE version 3.5.4 (including the Amarok media player), XFCE 4.2.3.2, the latest versions of Firefox and Thunderbird, plus SeaMonkey 1.0.5 (replacing the Mozilla suite). It also includes glibc-2.3.6, gcc-3.4.6, X11R6.9.0 from X.Org, and more.
Thread beginning with comment 167684
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
2.6 kernel
by mao25 on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 06:45 UTC
mao25
Member since:
2006-05-19

2.6.* kernel in extra ;) it just gets no love from Pat.

Btw, this time do you need 3 cds to install it? (not including extras)

Reply Score: 2

RE: 2.6 kernel
by Budd on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 07:12 in reply to "2.6 kernel"
Budd Member since:
2005-07-08

How's that 3 CDs not including extras? I know only about 2 CDs and the second one is not even needed unless you plan to install KDE or 2.6 kernel. At least that was in 10.2 . Maybe Pat added more CDs but I believe only one is needed for a fully functional system.So far I didn't checked for mirors offering iso's. I'll do that in the evening.Most probably I will buy it as I did with 9 and 10.2. So far 10.2 is doing the jos,there's no need for me to re-install.Maybe later.It is extremely simple to install 2.6 kernel (basic). 1 CD is more than enough for my server machine.

Edited 2006-10-03 07:15

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: 2.6 kernel
by pxa270 on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 07:18 in reply to "2.6 kernel"
pxa270 Member since:
2006-01-08

The 2.6 series is a lot less stable (not so much in the sense of crashing, but in the sense of new features and changes that break other stuff) than the 2.4 series. This was done by Linus on purpose. In the old days, the uneven series were for experimental features and changes, but they got a lot less testing as result. A while back, the kernel devs basically said they would use the 2.6 series for testing new stuff, rather than 2.7.x, and leave compatibility testing and patching to make other stuff work to the distro vendors.

Now this is fine for the likes of SUSE, Debian, Fedora, etc, but Slackware has far less developers than all other major distros. It's basically just Patrick and a number of prolific bug reporters, and the long standing policy has been to leave sources as much as possible unpatched from upstream. That's why it's still on the proven 2.4 by default. Still, Slackware 11.0 is probably the last 2.4 release, as more new packages (and new hardware) will require 2.6, most notably the latest gcc/glibc.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: 2.6 kernel
by twenex on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 10:51 in reply to "RE: 2.6 kernel"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Thanks for that info; for years I've been happily chugging along with 2.6, not understanding why anyone would complain about how "unstable" it is.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: 2.6 kernel
by TaterSalad on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 14:31 in reply to "2.6 kernel"
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

I'll take 3 cds over 50 floppy disks any day like I used to do with slack 3.1. Downloading the A, D, N, X sets and copying to floppy just to install it one disk at a time was pretty time consuming.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: 2.6 kernel
by MattPie on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 17:45 in reply to "RE: 2.6 kernel"
MattPie Member since:
2006-04-18

I'll take 3 cds over 50 floppy disks any day like I used to do with slack 3.1.

No kidding. These kids today. ;)

I've been thinking about trying a 2.4 distro for my machine at home. All the recent 2.6-based distributions crash on it (Fedora 5, Ubuntu 6.04). Machine runs fine under WinXP and FreeBSD 6.1 though.

(older MSI board with a 1.2GHz Athlon)

Reply Parent Score: 1