Very Computer

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

: 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...?

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

] : 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

Zack

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

   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).

                 ____

                  \/

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!
===========================================

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

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

: 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.

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

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.

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

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

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

:    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
                                   __||                      

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.
--