Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Slackware 10-RC1 Released

Posted by timothy on from the john-henry-of-distros dept.

Chaxid writes "According to the latest Slackware ChangeLog, release candidate one of the next iteration of Slack is upon us. I asked Patrick Volkerding via e-mail if the 2.6 series of the Linux kernel would be included in this version, and this was his response: 'To have support for using the 2.6 kernel in the installer might not be a good idea quite yet, and it would delay the release a lot. I'm planning to wait on that for the next one'. It's worth noting the Slackware 10 RC1 is fully 2.6 compliant however." As TouchOfRed writes, though, "A test kernel 2.6.6 option is offered via the 'testing' tree. Slackware does not offer ISOs for the RCs (however there are some third party users that compile the RCs or the -Current tree regularly as ISOs), so if you are already running Slackware 9.1, you can use the excellent Swaret to upgrade to the latest packages (make sure you edit your /etc/swaret.conf prior of using swaret to allow for kernel upgrades and other options)." This release includes kernel 2.4.26 , Gnome 2.6.1+, KDE 3.2.3, GCC 3.4, XOrg 6.7 and more.

8 of 346 comments (clear)

  1. Can anyone say why they don't release... by Dagny+Taggert · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ISO's of RCs? Is it to help the guys selling ISO CDs? Seems to me they would want to make it easier to get and test.

    --
    Don't be a looter...and yes, I know that it's spelled with an "A" instead of an "E".
    1. Re:Can anyone say why they don't release... by boojit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sure it does. Just download the distro at work (using straight rsync or swaret or even FTP if you want but that doesn't work very well) and then build your own ISOs from the distro. It's a piece of cake, there is even a text file there to tell you exactly how to build the ISO. You can even build your own CD with just the packages you want on it, so you can have the whole thing on 1 CD if you want.

      If all else fails, unofficial sites do release ISOs of the current releases. Some have been mentioned in this forum.

      DaC

  2. Happiness :) by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It fills my heart with glee that a fellow dutchy is making (among other people of course) one of the more popular linux distros.

    Congrats to him (and the team)

    --
    This is the sig that says NI (again)
  3. Terminology nit-pick by johnw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Surely you can't release an RC? You can issue an RC, but once it's released it's a release, not a release candidate.

    1. Re:Terminology nit-pick by nine-times · · Score: 4, Interesting
      It seems like everyone is going "release candidate" crazy lately. It seems to me that "release candidate" used to mean "we think this may end up being the 'final' version, but we're going to do some testing, just to make sure. If we don't encounter any HUGE bugs, this will be final." Developers didn't even hit RC2 unless there was some big and unexpected bug in RC1.

      Now, people are releasing release candidates as "a full release that we don't yet guarentee is free of bugs", but they don't exactly guarentee the final release is bug-free either, so I'm never sure what the difference is. Plus, they plan on going through 3 release candidates before the final release, which means that "Release Candidate 1" is never really a candidate for release as "final", and yet it is released. It seems like either the terminology or numbering schemes could use some revision to reflect what the developers actually mean.

  4. Wow, 10 already? by Nick+of+NSTime · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Slackware was the first distro I ever used, way back in 1995. I had read about Linux in a small InfoWorld article, back when InfoWorld was tabloid size instead of regular magazine size. The article said you could run an entire operating system on a single floppy disk. Of course, I had to try this on my 386SX with 4M RAM. I downloaded Slack over a 14.4 modem and then copying it all to a set of floppy disks. I wish I could remember the name of that tool. Anyway, I ended up installing Slackware using UMSDOS so I could keep my DOS/Windows data.

    I remember I had to completely reinstall Slackware any time I wanted to add a new piece of software because I didn't know how it all worked. The very first question I asked on a Linux newsgroup was, "What's darkstar?" It, of course, was the default hostname for a new Slackware install. Heh. Starting X would dump you into fvwm with only an xterm and a pager; not much has changed there. :)

    Ultimately I used that Slackware machine to learn about Unix and make the move from client-focused to enterprise-focused. Those were fun times.

  5. Re:KDE by Schrambo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I do. I'm only a newcommer to the loving arms of slackware(9.1) for about 4 months now. The non-bloatness. With slackware I am in total control of my system. so what slack is manaul configuring and it doesn't have the greatest auto hardware detection. In my eyes thats a good thing. it makes you learn, and with slackware you learn fast.

  6. Re:Fully 2.6 compliant by 13Echo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm currently using 2.6.6 with Slackware 9.1, but I noticed this too... While it works fine, the hotplug system seems to not work as well as it did with 2.4.22. Most specifically, ALSA seems to act a little goofy, but it's nothing that can't be fixed by adding a specific init command to load the proper modules. As for the rest of the important stuff (power management, networking, etc.) - I just built all of that into the kernel instead of making it into modules.