why no slackware bugfixes?

why no slackware bugfixes?

Post by zachary bro » Mon, 20 Nov 1995 04:00:00



What's the story with slackware? Why are none of the bugs getting
fixed? The g++ include files are still in the wrong place, or else g++
looks for them in the wrong place; the include files (such as
String.h) don't work anyway; and bash getopt is still broken.

No bugs have been fixed for nearly a month. Is this going to be like
that Texinfo known bug, where texinfo.tex was not in the texinfo
package for about 8 months after its absence was reported?

Don't get me wrong. I know we're all lucky to have slackware (and
linux itself) at all. I've been using linux since it was still beta,
and I'm extremely grateful to all the people who help put it together
for the rest of us.

But why can't there ever be a truly stable, working version of
slackware before each successive release? I upgraded to version 3
partly because there had been no changes in several weeks, and partly
in the hopes that the bugs of the last release would be fixed.  And
they were. But now all these new bugs are here, and they're not
getting fixed. When the next release comes out, they may be, but then
there'll be a whole new set of bugs.

Why not slow down the release schedule, so that each distribution
reaches true solidity before the next one comes out. This way the
people who are not very powerful with unix can simply wait until the
distribution is stable before upgrading.

Again, don't get me wrong. I don't mind a tweak here and there. But
the C compiler and the default shell? Those should work.

Zack

 
 
 

why no slackware bugfixes?

Post by Christoph Lamet » Mon, 20 Nov 1995 04:00:00


: What's the story with slackware? Why are none of the bugs getting
: fixed? The g++ include files are still in the wrong place, or else g++
: looks for them in the wrong place; the include files (such as
: String.h) don't work anyway; and bash getopt is still broken.
How about starting an ftp site with slackware fixes?

: No bugs have been fixed for nearly a month. Is this going to be like
: that Texinfo known bug, where texinfo.tex was not in the texinfo
: package for about 8 months after its absence was reported?
That would take care of that. HAve a site with modules to fix the problems.

: Don't get me wrong. I know we're all lucky to have slackware (and
: linux itself) at all. I've been using linux since it was still beta,
: and I'm extremely grateful to all the people who help put it together
: for the rest of us.
Linux is always beta...

: But why can't there ever be a truly stable, working version of
: slackware before each successive release? I upgraded to version 3
: partly because there had been no changes in several weeks, and partly
: in the hopes that the bugs of the last release would be fixed.  And
: they were. But now all these new bugs are here, and they're not
: getting fixed. When the next release comes out, they may be, but then
: there'll be a whole new set of bugs.
That is the nature of software.

: Why not slow down the release schedule, so that each distribution
: reaches true solidity before the next one comes out. This way the
: people who are not very powerful with unix can simply wait until the
: distribution is stable before upgrading.
Look at the debian distribution if you want true solidity and ancient
software.

: Again, don't get me wrong. I don't mind a tweak here and there. But
: the C compiler and the default shell? Those should work.
They do. I use them daily and I did not experience any of your problems.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Christoph Lameter            FTS Box 466, Pasadena, CA 91182
 Internet Administrator       Who is like Jesus... who is like God...?

 
 
 

why no slackware bugfixes?

Post by Marek Michalkiewi » Tue, 21 Nov 1995 04:00:00


: What's the story with slackware? Why are none of the bugs getting
: fixed? The g++ include files are still in the wrong place, or else g++
: looks for them in the wrong place; the include files (such as
: String.h) don't work anyway; and bash getopt is still broken.

The following is only my opinions, no flames please...

As you may know, ftp.cdrom.com == ftp.freebsd.org - if Slackware is too
good, they would lose some FreeBSD sales :-).

: No bugs have been fixed for nearly a month. Is this going to be like
: that Texinfo known bug, where texinfo.tex was not in the texinfo
: package for about 8 months after its absence was reported?

Slackware is not the only Linux distribution.  It is the most popular one,
but then Windows is the most popular PC "operating system" :-).

If you are looking for a Linux distribution which isn't bug-free either,
but is well maintained and reported bugs usually get fixed quickly, try
Debian.  There may be other good distributions, but I only have experience
with Slackware and Debian.

: Why not slow down the release schedule, so that each distribution
: reaches true solidity before the next one comes out. This way the
: people who are not very powerful with unix can simply wait until the
: distribution is stable before upgrading.

Because they want to sell more CD-ROMs more quickly.  They sell very
well anyway, so why delay the release to fix more bugs?

Marek

 
 
 

why no slackware bugfixes?

Post by David F » Tue, 21 Nov 1995 04:00:00



] : What's the story with slackware? Why are none of the bugs getting
] : fixed? The g++ include files are still in the wrong place, or else g++
] : looks for them in the wrong place; the include files (such as
] : String.h) don't work anyway; and bash getopt is still broken.
] How about starting an ftp site with slackware fixes?

ftp://found.cs.nyu.edu/pub/fox/linux/slackfix.tgz
--
David Fox          I have spoken.  All depart.          xoF divaD
NYU Media Research Lab                     baL hcraeseR aideM UYN
                   http://found.cs.nyu.edu/fox

 
 
 

why no slackware bugfixes?

Post by zachary bro » Wed, 22 Nov 1995 04:00:00





>: Again, don't get me wrong. I don't mind a tweak here and there. But
>: the C compiler and the default shell? Those should work.
>They do. I use them daily and I did not experience any of your problems.

Do you use bash getopt or String.h?

Zack

Quote:>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Christoph Lameter            FTS Box 466, Pasadena, CA 91182
> Internet Administrator       Who is like Jesus... who is like God...?

 
 
 

why no slackware bugfixes?

Post by Or » Fri, 24 Nov 1995 04:00:00




>With linux (any distribution), your system is badly obsolete in
>6 months, just about the time you have enough stuff working right.

   I disagree.

   The last time I did a system upgrade was when I went from 99pl14
to 1.0, replacing a SLS installation (which replaced the stillborn
0.12 installation) with MCC 1.0+.  Since that time, the only
changes I've done have been incremental changes (the standard C
libraries, the kernel, and various utilities.) I am, as of this
moment, running with a system containing bits of code that have not
been touched for up to 36 months (/usr/bin/clisp; Oct 10, 1992) and
I'm certainly not suffering from the ravages of obsolescence by
using them.

Quote:>My guess is that the stability thing you talk about may be better
>in FreeBSD.  FreeBSD come out with a "stable" release about every
>6 months (linux changes too much and only has a stable every year
>or so).

   A word of warning about FreeBSD, though;  I won't comment on
performance or reliability (my freeBSD machine isn't used for
production work, so I don't have the vaguest idea of how well it
will work under heavy or sustained load), but if you're used to the
modern Linux setup programs (I'm thinking of the Red Hat
distribution in particular, though the recent Slackware setup
programs aren't too bad), freeBSD, even 2.0.x, will seem fairly
crude.

                 ____

                  \/

 
 
 

why no slackware bugfixes?

Post by Perry Gri » Fri, 24 Nov 1995 04:00:00


At the risk of getting severly flamed upto my ding-a-ling...  I like
linux very much and use it everyday on the home machine.  I also use
the Slackware distribution and like it much better than "brand-X".
I can't find a single bad thing to say about Walnut Creek (cdrom.com)
either in their support for both linux and FreeBSD efforts... but

With linux (any distribution), your system is badly obsolete in
6 months, just about the time you have enough stuff working right.
Then it's back to fdisk time.  Every thing keeps changing (which
creats new bugs, as you've noted).  Maybe some year, enough stuff
will be in the kernel, libraries, compiler that things will settle
down (mystical linux kernel 2.x?).

My guess is that the stability thing you talk about may be better
in FreeBSD.  FreeBSD come out with a "stable" release about every
6 months (linux changes too much and only has a stable every year
or so).  The new FreeBSD 2.1 is just out.  I expect CDs to hit the
streets in a month or less.  The FreeBSD news group (J. Hubbard?)
seem to be real interested in a solid debugged CD release.  Also,
BSD has been developed over a 10 year period.  It's gotta be more
"mature" than linux from that point of view.  Give linux another
five years to catch up.  I don't think FreeBSD snap-shots come out
as often as the "weekly" development kernel in linux either.

Don't know about you, but I am going to get one of the FreeBSD 2.1
CDs.  I'll give it a shot.  If I like it, I may keep on the HD for
a year and see how obsolete it gets.  Then figure out which one is
best for me.  By that time I suppost GNU Hurd will be the thing to
do...  Oh well.  That's the problem when you have too many good
choices.

|> What's the story with slackware? Why are none of the bugs getting
|> fixed? The g++ include files are still in the wrong place, or else g++
|> looks for them in the wrong place; the include files (such as
|> String.h) don't work anyway; and bash getopt is still broken.
|>
|> No bugs have been fixed for nearly a month. Is this going to be like
|> that Texinfo known bug, where texinfo.tex was not in the texinfo
|> package for about 8 months after its absence was reported?
|>
|> Don't get me wrong. I know we're all lucky to have slackware (and
|> linux itself) at all. I've been using linux since it was still beta,
|> and I'm extremely grateful to all the people who help put it together
|> for the rest of us.

[snip]

|> Zack
--
===========================================

Doing Linux 1.2.13 on an maxed out 386DX20!
I wouldn't of made it up if it wasn't true!
===========================================

 
 
 

why no slackware bugfixes?

Post by Christoph Lamet » Fri, 24 Nov 1995 04:00:00


: >: Again, don't get me wrong. I don't mind a tweak here and there. But
: >: the C compiler and the default shell? Those should work.
: >They do. I use them daily and I did not experience any of your problems.

: Do you use bash getopt or String.h?
No. But I use bash extensively and compile a lot of programs.

 
 
 

why no slackware bugfixes?

Post by zachary bro » Sun, 26 Nov 1995 04:00:00




>: >: Again, don't get me wrong. I don't mind a tweak here and there. But
>: >: the C compiler and the default shell? Those should work.
>: >They do. I use them daily and I did not experience any of your problems.

>: Do you use bash getopt or String.h?
>No. But I use bash extensively and compile a lot of programs.

Do you consider a program to be bug free if you have not encountered
its bugs?

BTW Patrick cleared up the getopt question (it is /bin/getoptprog
now), but String.h is still a mystery.

 
 
 

why no slackware bugfixes?

Post by Andries Brouw » Mon, 27 Nov 1995 04:00:00


: BTW Patrick cleared up the getopt question (it is /bin/getoptprog
: now)

No, please don't say that - it is /bin/getopt, it has always been
that, and I hope it will always be that - no reason to start one
more confusion. If by some accident you have a distribution that
mistakenly puts getopt in /bin/getoptprog, then just
"mv /bin/getoptprog /bin/getopt" to fix this bug.

 
 
 

why no slackware bugfixes?

Post by Christoph Lamet » Mon, 27 Nov 1995 04:00:00




: >: >: Again, don't get me wrong. I don't mind a tweak here and there. But
: >: >: the C compiler and the default shell? Those should work.
: >: >They do. I use them daily and I did not experience any of your problems.
: >
: >: Do you use bash getopt or String.h?
: >No. But I use bash extensively and compile a lot of programs.
: Do you consider a program to be bug free if you have not encountered
: its bugs?
Yes. Then it is bug free for my purposes. A program that is called "bug-free" is a hoax.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Christoph Lameter            FTS Box 466, Pasadena, CA 91182
 Internet Administrator       Who is like Jesus... who is like God...?

 
 
 

why no slackware bugfixes?

Post by Sam Trenhol » Tue, 28 Nov 1995 04:00:00


Quote:>>With linux (any distribution), your system is badly obsolete in
>>6 months, just about the time you have enough stuff working right.

>   I disagree.

I also disagree. Obselete means, to me, no longer useful for the task at
hand. For example, I have not made the slightest effort to upgrade to
ELF, despite the fact that many others have struggled with this. Why not?
Becuase my system works fine as is, and I do not need to risk breaking my
system trying out things like that.

Despite all the talk here about upgrading to Elf, the latest 1.3.>43
kernel, the latest libc, etc., I do not think doing such things are really
necessary to have a working Linux system.

To the origional poster: I encourage you in your journey to study BSD...
perhaps you can have both in a dual-boot system.

--
- Any opinions expressed in this message are strictly my own opinions -

I use Linux at home. For more information, look at http://www.linux.org

 
 
 

why no slackware bugfixes?

Post by Miquel van Smoorenbu » Tue, 28 Nov 1995 04:00:00





>>My guess is that the stability thing you talk about may be better
>>in FreeBSD.  FreeBSD come out with a "stable" release about every
>>6 months (linux changes too much and only has a stable every year
>>or so).

>   A word of warning about FreeBSD, though;  I won't comment on
>performance or reliability (my freeBSD machine isn't used for
>production work, so I don't have the vaguest idea of how well it
>will work under heavy or sustained load), but if you're used to the
>modern Linux setup programs (I'm thinking of the Red Hat
>distribution in particular, though the recent Slackware setup
>programs aren't too bad), freeBSD, even 2.0.x, will seem fairly
>crude.

I really hate to admit this [:-)] but I've recently installed
FreeBSD 2.1-RELEASE for a customer and this is absolutely no
longer true. Setting it up is a breeze. I think the setup is even
easier then Debian's (to which I've switched). With one bootdisk
you can setup from disk, floppy, NFS, ftp, and you can even
establish a PPP link on-the-fly to install from...

Follow-ups set to comp.os.linux.advocacy..

--
+ Miquel van Smoorenburg + Cistron Internet Services +  Living is a     |


 
 
 

why no slackware bugfixes?

Post by Thomas Graich » Wed, 29 Nov 1995 04:00:00




: >With linux (any distribution), your system is badly obsolete in
: >6 months, just about the time you have enough stuff working right.

:    I disagree.

:    The last time I did a system upgrade was when I went from 99pl14
: to 1.0, replacing a SLS installation (which replaced the stillborn
: 0.12 installation) with MCC 1.0+.  Since that time, the only
: changes I've done have been incremental changes (the standard C
: libraries, the kernel, and various utilities.) I am, as of this
: moment, running with a system containing bits of code that have not
: been touched for up to 36 months (/usr/bin/clisp; Oct 10, 1992) and
: I'm certainly not suffering from the ravages of obsolescence by
: using them.

: >My guess is that the stability thing you talk about may be better
: >in FreeBSD.  FreeBSD come out with a "stable" release about every
: >6 months (linux changes too much and only has a stable every year
: >or so).

:    A word of warning about FreeBSD, though;  I won't comment on
: performance or reliability (my freeBSD machine isn't used for
: production work, so I don't have the vaguest idea of how well it
: will work under heavy or sustained load), but if you're used to the
: modern Linux setup programs (I'm thinking of the Red Hat
: distribution in particular, though the recent Slackware setup
: programs aren't too bad), freeBSD, even 2.0.x, will seem fairly
: crude.

. but it is worked on - it also has changed a bit since 2.0.x (we
have 2.1.0 now) - and i usually _work_ with the system and don't
always set it up :-) - i used linux for more than two years before i
tried FreeBSD and now (one year later) i completely switched to
FreeBSD because i like it more - but that's everyones own decision -
and that are no flames for linux - i still like it - but i think a
"warning" is too hard for FreeBSD - maybe the setup is not that good
like the red hat one - but it will bring the system really easy to
your harddisk and configures the basics - that's what i expect from an
setup program - for me the first thing counting is the _running_
system - and here i'm - as said above - more happy with FreeBSD

t
  _______________________________________________________||___________________
                                                   __||
  Perfection is reached, not when there is no  __||     thomas graichen
  longer anything to add, but when there   __||    freie universitaet berlin
  is no longer anything to take away   __||           fachbereich physik
                                   __||                      


 
 
 

why no slackware bugfixes?

Post by Jerry Natowi » Wed, 29 Nov 1995 04:00:00




>Yes. Then it is bug free for my purposes. A program that is called "bug-free" is a hoax.

This reminds me of a program for IBM System/360 called IEFBR14.  A BR 14 was
the equivalent of a RETURN in that architecture, and IEFBR14 was a dummy
program used in JCL (Job Control Language) for creating files, mounting
tapes, or what have you.

Unbelievable at it might seem, there was once a bug in IEFBR14, they forgot
to clear R15, which held the return code.  Since R15 contains the program
starting address, I think the bug remained dormant until an architectural
change allowed programs to not be loaded at location 0.
--

 
 
 

1. why no slackware bugfixes?



   Well, that's what I was told a while back when I was bitching
about the unfrendliness of the 1.5 install, so I'll take it with a
single grain of salt.  But hope springs eternal, and I'll hunt
down a 2.1.x CD and see what happens (hey, if ext2fs support is
in it, it will make the game of playing mix-and-match OSes a
lot easier; freeBSD with ext2fs and a linux emulator should be
able to be run in place of linux on some of the semi-diskless
workstations I've got around here.)

  Heh.  Provided the networking will talk to my ansel 1500 card :-)

                ____

                 \/

2. Security Question

3. krb_err.c bugfix and snake Makefile bugfix

4. wait for background process to stop....

5. Anyone collecting bugfixes for slackware?

6. Linux boot only gets so far on P90 System

7. Not Available these Signal nos on Linux

8. which editor should I learn VI or EMACS

9. CD-RW: CDFS? Unstable dev nos?

10. NOS shootout

11. Seeds for random nos.

12. faster NOS: NetWare or Linux?