It took me forever to get 11 exactly like my 10.2 which was AFAIC
perfect, for me. And now 12 talk?

I just got 11 90% done a week ago. Now I'm keeping 10.2 on so I can
quickly migrate anything I overlooked.

Like one seldom used item was f-prot virus scanner, that I have a script
that I use to run it. The only time I ever use it is when I download a
windows app or whatever. I scan it before I boot W2K (I spend maybe 1.5
hours a week using M$ ware).

So no biggie but I want that when I need it.

So now there's talk of 12 being imminent Anyone care to speculate just
how imminent?

I know this question sometimes irks people but most of the time it's
made by people with "upgrade-itis".

I'd change my work load schedule (on my PC) and on what I spend my time
on if 12 was to be released real soon.

OTOH, if I have 2 or more months then I'll continue as I am now and await
for the overlooked to make itself known in my 11.0 project.

See I'd like to avoid being as far behind as I am now. I figured 11
would be the latest stable until the end of the year. And also 11 does
everything I want it to very well so...

What do ya think?

--
Linux Help: http://rsgibson.com/linux.htm
Email - rsgibson@verizon.borg
Replace borg with net

Ron Gibson (rsgibson@verizon.net) writes:
> It took me forever to get 11 exactly like my 10.2 which was AFAIC
> perfect, for me. And now 12 talk?
>
Huh?

You keep notes from the moment you start installing, preferably on the
computer itself so you'll be verbose, and then when it comes time to
upgrade, you just have to follow the steps.

There really isn't that much different from version to version, not
in terms of customizing config files. What worked last time is pretty
certain to work next time.

Of course you can take years to "get things right". But that's not
about taking years to do all the work, it's about gradually making
changes as you see fit. So you start using a program you've never
used before, and there's customization you feel a need to do, and
you add that to the log file. Or that program you've used for years,
suddenly you learn something new about it, or suddenly find a need
to do things differently, and that adds to the "getting it right" stage.

I'm still running 10.0 and have since it came out. I'm still making changes
to it, but I long ago adjusted it to the state of the version I was
using before. It took no more than a couple of days, and that's stretching
things, to fix up 11 when I installed it in May, and the only reason
I've not switched over completely is lethargy.

Michael

Michael Black wrote:
> Ron Gibson (rsgibson@verizon.net) writes:
>> It took me forever to get 11 exactly like my 10.2 which was
>> AFAIC perfect, for me. And now 12 talk?
>>
> Huh?
>
> You keep notes from the moment you start installing, preferably
> on the computer itself so you'll be verbose, and then when it
> comes time to upgrade, you just have to follow the steps.

That may be what _you_ do. But most of us are tough and we don't
screw around with anal shit like that.

> There really isn't that much different from version to version,
> not in terms of customizing config files. What worked last time
> is pretty certain to work next time.

So just save you /etc somewhere on your windoze partition and
format the sucker and start fresh. Once you have done it 10 or 12
times you won't need any candy assed notes.

> Of course you can take years to "get things right". But that's
> not about taking years to do all the work, it's about gradually
> making changes as you see fit. So you start using a program
> you've never used before, and there's customization you feel a
> need to do, and you add that to the log file. Or that program
> you've used for years, suddenly you learn something new about
> it, or suddenly find a need to do things differently, and that
> adds to the "getting it right" stage.

Upgrading is just another area where windoze is so far ahead of
linux and slackware in particular.

> I'm still running 10.0 and have since it came out. I'm still
> making changes to it, but I long ago adjusted it to the state of
> the version I was using before.

So you aren't using the latest flash, huh? Half of the internet's
video is not available to you?

> It took no more than a couple of days, and that's stretching
> things, to fix up 11 when I installed it in May, and the only
> reason I've not switched over completely is lethargy.

You should really try out flash 9. Things have changed in the 21st
century.

cordially, as always,

rm

On 2007-06-28, Michael Black <et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:

> There really isn't that much different from version to version, not
> in terms of customizing config files. What worked last time is pretty
> certain to work next time.

So I thought, too, But, putting the adaptec kernal instead of bare.i,
even though 2.4, has made for some bizarre behavior. slrn/jed has
glitches, despite cp'ing my old .slrnrc/.jedrc files straight over
like I have the last 3 revs. Also, kde's start menu takes 15 secs to
pop up, instead of instantly like with 10.1. This on a 450Mhz PII w/
512 L2 cache instead of a 433 celery (both 440BX m/b's). OTOH, the
433 has .5G RAM vs 100M RAM on the 459 PII. Does 400M RAM make that
much of a diff? This is the first time I've run Slack on a scsi
system, and it seems ok except for these few glitches.

My jed works pretty well, except when doing an M-left key, which
typically moves the cursor back one whole word. With my new 11 box,
it does zip. Even John D is baffled. Anyone else run across this
with jed on 11?

nb
Davis is baffled.




nb

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:19:35 -0500, notbob wrote:

>> There really isn't that much different from version to version, not in
>> terms of customizing config files. What worked last time is pretty
>> certain to work next time.

> So I thought, too, But, putting the adaptec kernel instead of bare.i,
> even
> though 2.4, has made for some bizarre behavior. slrn/jed has glitches,
> despite cp'ing my old .slrnrc/.jedrc files straight over like I have the
> last 3 revs. Also, kde's start menu takes 15 secs to pop up, instead of
> instantly like with 10.1. This on a 450Mhz PII w/ 512 L2 cache instead of

Yeah getting 90% of it the same is easy. It's the last 10% that takes
the majority of time and before I'm ready to commit 100% I want it so
that if I'm in a hurry and need something done as I dash out the door I
don't want to have to break out a damn manual or log to figure out what
I have to do to get it to work.

I save the tarball of every app I add from source and follow a very
rigid pattern in getting a new distro ready and my tweaks by the
standards of many today are considered major.

My gosh, I see people posting, "You never have to compile a kernel".
Yeah, IMO, *they* never do, but after all these years I still feel *I*
have to.

--
Linux Help: http://rsgibson.com/linux.htm
Email - rsgibson@verizon.borg
Replace borg with net

Roland Morrison trolled:

> Upgrading is just another area where windoze is so far ahead of
> linux and slackware in particular.

Har! Yeah, it's quite easy to get all those drivers reinstalled, eh?

>> I'm still running 10.0 and have since it came out. I'm still
>> making changes to it, but I long ago adjusted it to the state of
>> the version I was using before.

> So you aren't using the latest flash, huh? Half of the internet's
> video is not available to you?

Not everyone watches as many p0rn flicks as you do, junior.

> cordially, as always,

Smeg off, troll.


--
"Ubuntu" - an African word meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Ron Gibson <rsgibson@verizon.net> wrote:
> And also 11 does everything I want it to very well so...

Don't fix anything that isn't broken. I'm still running Slackware 9.1 on
my machines but will evaluate 12.0 to consider if it is worth upgrading
when it comes out. Slackware 9.1 is now almost four years old but still
maintained with security patches. I don't think you have to worry about
11.0 being unmaintained as it has been stated that it will be maintained
for a long time as it is the last Slackware with a 2.4 kernel.

My main reason for upgrading 9.1 is that it is now becoming hard to
install it on newer computers with exotic hardware like SATA-drives, new
soundcards, new network cards and new graphics. The reason that I didn't
upgrade to 10.* was that there was no such problems at that time. It would
not be worth the 50-100 hours of work that it would take to customize and
upgrade the distro on all machines. When 11.0 came the need for upgrade
could be sensed, but an evaluation showed that it was hard to find a
common configuration that would work fine on all machines. Some machines
required the 2.6 kernel to work, others required the 2.4 kernel to work.

Even if you don't upgrade there might be a good idea to purchase the CDs.
That will support Slackware and the CDs contain sources for new and
updated applications which you can compile both for older Slackware and
other unixes.

regards Henrik
--
The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is:
hc1(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers:
root@localhost postmaster@localhost

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:10:42 +0200, Henrik Carlqvist wrote:

> Don't fix anything that isn't broken. I'm still running Slackware 9.1 on
> my machines but will evaluate 12.0 to consider if it is worth upgrading
> when it comes out. Slackware 9.1 is now almost four years old but still
> maintained with security patches. I don't think you have to worry about
> 11.0 being unmaintained as it has been stated that it will be maintained
> for a long time as it is the last Slackware with a 2.4 kernel.

Oh I agree 100% - I ran I think it was version 7 for over two years. It
was the version that Pat decided to jump version numbers so our version
number would correspond with other distros like RH at the time.

Also there were some libc and/or gcc problems at the time and new
releases of that were breaking things.

> My main reason for upgrading 9.1 is that it is now becoming hard to
> install it on newer computers with exotic hardware like SATA-drives, new
> soundcards, new network cards and new graphics. The reason that I didn't
> upgrade to 10.* was that there was no such problems at that time.

My hardware is hardly cutting edge but I'm real happy with a 3Ghz P4 on
an Intel 865PE platform but I just had full lm_sensors support in kernel
2.6.19. When I discovered that 10.2 would not work with kernel 2.6.21.5
unless I uppped udev I decided it was time to get that 11 installation
polished off.

The one other thing is I occasionally build machines for others so I do
try to be familiar with more recent hardware and it's needs.

--
Linux Help: http://rsgibson.com/linux.htm
Email - rsgibson@verizon.borg
Replace borg with net

Roland Morrison wrote:
> Upgrading is just another area where windoze is so far ahead of
> linux and slackware in particular.

lol. Upgrading Slackware is a piece of cake compared to trying to
upgrade Windows. Trust me, I know. I use both. installpkg * vs the
hoops you have to do to "upgrade" windows...

Customizing both OS'es on a new install is a lot of work, but Linux is
still easier because I can just copy config files back around. Ever try
and save your settings for explorer in Windows? (not IE, but the file
manager - show extensions and stuff like that... that shit is buried
deep within the registry - I've got most of it automated, but not all of
it.)

Ray

Ray wrote:
> Roland Morrison wrote:
>> Upgrading is just another area where windoze is so far ahead
>> of linux and slackware in particular.
>
> lol. Upgrading Slackware is a piece of cake compared to trying
> to upgrade Windows. Trust me, I know. I use both. installpkg
> * vs the hoops you have to do to "upgrade" windows...

We've gone all the way from windoze 2.1 to XP and installing a new
version over an old version is as easy as sticking the CD, or the
diskettes, in the day, and letting fly. All you have to do is type
in the name of the computer and the windoze serial number and away
you go.

> Customizing both OS'es on a new install is a lot of work, but
> Linux is still easier because I can just copy config files back
> around. Ever try and save your settings for explorer in
> Windows? (not IE, but the file manager - show extensions and
> stuff like that... that shit is buried deep within the registry
> - I've got most of it automated, but not all of it.)

If you are using the official windoze update software, then there
is no issue. It seems that you are using the wrong version of
windows, perhaps a pirated OEM full version, and in that case,
installation is a little more difficult.

cordially, as always,

rm