Hi there,

Already, buglets in the latest and greatest being patched, some here
want to stay with the distro kernel? Why? Slackware is one of very
few distros that ships with standard (vanilla) linux-kernel, this means
there is no excuse not to stay up with the latest security fixes and
get to know and experience the newest buglets

Neil is still trying to figure out RAID1, Anton fixed a scheduler
deadlock, Nathan tried an XFS writeout fix, and Alexey fixed the
(CVE-2006-1242) TCP bug. But wait, there's more... Usual place.

Grant.
--
Memory fault -- brain fried

Did Slackware ever ship with 2.6.16? So. . . If a user/admin upgrades
his slackware box to the 2.6.16 kernel, they are taking the risk of
running into bugs of a new kernel. It is up to the admin to determine
which kernel is right for their system.

Grant wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Already, buglets in the latest and greatest being patched, some here
> want to stay with the distro kernel? Why? Slackware is one of very
> few distros that ships with standard (vanilla) linux-kernel, this means
> there is no excuse not to stay up with the latest security fixes and
> get to know and experience the newest buglets
>
> Neil is still trying to figure out RAID1, Anton fixed a scheduler
> deadlock, Nathan tried an XFS writeout fix, and Alexey fixed the
> (CVE-2006-1242) TCP bug. But wait, there's more... Usual place.
>

I think Linus has explained that quite nicely; since hardly anyone
(who's not a kernel developer) uses the rc kernels, it's necesary to
make stable releases with the expectation that there will be problems.

That's why he added the additional kernel number in 2.6.8.1; he didn't
want to make 2.6.9 the next day just because nobody bothers to test the
release candidates...

MikeDawg wrote:
> Did Slackware ever ship with 2.6.16?

nope.

> So. . . If a user/admin upgrades his slackware box to the 2.6.16 kernel,
> they are taking the risk of running into bugs of a new kernel.

yup.

> It is up to the admin to determine which kernel is right for their system.

yup. Going for the latest has always been like that. Not'in new there..

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

On 28 Mar 2006 10:09:37 -0800, "Chris Sorenson" <csoren@isd.net> wrote:

>I think Linus has explained that quite nicely; since hardly anyone
>(who's not a kernel developer) uses the rc kernels, it's necesary to
>make stable releases with the expectation that there will be problems.

Yes, I do know that...

>That's why he added the additional kernel number in 2.6.8.1; he didn't
>want to make 2.6.9 the next day just because nobody bothers to test the

That was an anomaly prior to the formal stable team's release fixups
that came in around 2.6.11 or .12 -- refer 'sucker tree' in lkml archive.

Grant.
--
Memory fault -- brain fried

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:39:13 +0200, Mogens V. wrote:

> MikeDawg wrote:
>> Did Slackware ever ship with 2.6.16?
>
> nope.
>
>> So. . . If a user/admin upgrades his slackware box to the 2.6.16 kernel,
> > they are taking the risk of running into bugs of a new kernel.
>
> yup.
>
>> It is up to the admin to determine which kernel is right for their
>> system.
>
> yup. Going for the latest has always been like that. Not'in new there..

I've been running a 2.6.16 kernel for a week or so. Seems good. Had to
patch a couple of things but everythings quiet atm.

Karl