Just a triv question.

Cast you mind back to the jump from Slack 4 to Slack 7. I joined Slack at
3.4 I think and I believe that at that time major numbers increased when
slack went to a new kernel version.

So, if the jump did not exist and we kept on track where would we be now? I
suspect Slack 5.1:

3.x were kernel 2.2.x
4.x was kernel 2.4

Therefore kernel 2.6 ought to go with Slack 5.x, so Slack 12.0 should be
Slack 5.0 - we are now on 5.1 in old money?

Of course, if the Ubuntu name thing spreads I suspect that the next Slack
release will be Sarcastic Stoat.

Pete


--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Peter Chant wrote:

> Of course, if the Ubuntu name thing spreads I suspect that the next
> Slack release will be Sarcastic Stoat.

Perhaps in view of the distributions name, qualities and philosophy,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacker 'relaxed rino' would be more
appropriate, laid-back but tough.
--
Two Ravens
"...hit the squirrel..."

Peter Chant <REMpeteOVE@CAPpetezilla.ITALSco.uk> wrote:
> Just a triv question.
>
> Cast you mind back to the jump from Slack 4 to Slack 7. I joined Slack at
> 3.4 I think and I believe that at that time major numbers increased when
> slack went to a new kernel version.
>
> So, if the jump did not exist and we kept on track where would we be now? I
> suspect Slack 5.1:

I would say 12.1 - 3 = 9.1

There were some big changes, that I don't remember, causing the major
version changes. There was a lot more than the kernel later on in
Linux. There were major library upgrades, KDE came out, I believe Gnome
came out aroudn the same time - the move to having 2.4 & 2.6, the move to
just 2.6....

So, I would just subtract the jump (3) from the current version number.

- Kurt

Peter Chant <REMpeteOVE@cappetezilla.italsco.uk> wrote:
> 3.x were kernel 2.2.x
> 4.x was kernel 2.4

Not really, 4.0 was 2.2 kernel (2.2.6, to be exact).
And all 3.x releases still only used the 2.0 kernel (2.0.35 for 3.6).
The "major" jump for 4.0 was the first - experimental - usage of
glibc2 (although the main use was still with libc.so.5 aka glibc1).

I think that 7.0 was the first release with full glibc2
support, but it also still used 2.2 kernels, the 2.4 (.5)
kernel didn't come untill Slackware 8.0.
So in _your_ numbering 8.0 would have been 5.0 and
12.0 would then be 6.0, which means we now would be at
release 6.1
--
************************************************** *****************
** Eef Hartman, Delft University of Technology, dept. SSC/ICT **
** e-mail: E.J.M.Hartman@tudelft.nl, fax: +31-15-278 7295 **
** snail-mail: P.O. Box 5031, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands **
************************************************** *****************

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2008-07-17, Peter Chant <REMpeteOVE@CAPpetezilla.ITALSco.uk> wrote:
> Cast you mind back to the jump from Slack 4 to Slack 7. I joined Slack at
> 3.4 I think and I believe that at that time major numbers increased when
> slack went to a new kernel version.

There's many other reasons as well. Basically, major kernel version
changes and any major library change that breaks backwards compatability
is justification for a new major version number IMHO.

> So, if the jump did not exist and we kept on track where would we be now? I
> suspect Slack 5.1:

Slackware 7.n would have been 4.n+1
8.n would be 5.n
9.n would be 6.n
10.n would be 7.n
11.n would be 8.n
12.n would be 9.n

Simple enough.

- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkh/qdYACgkQrZS6hX/gvjrgmwCfWZVBFPYgqHf+NQApJH7lhW8J
qdIAoJ7Cj2AH+DVC/7BP8nmWwbY5+Cu8
=8D/y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Eef Hartman wrote:

> Not really, 4.0 was 2.2 kernel (2.2.6, to be exact).
> And all 3.x releases still only used the 2.0 kernel (2.0.35 for 3.6).
> The "major" jump for 4.0 was the first - experimental - usage of
> glibc2 (although the main use was still with libc.so.5 aka glibc1).

I've not got round to clearing out those old disks, I should have looked.

In fact, in front of me now, Slackware 3.4, Includes XFree86 3.3.1, Includes
kernel version 2.0.30.

"Official Slackware Linux requires 4-8 MB of memory and 12 MB of hard
disk. - though that was minimal install without X, and dev tools!


--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Eef Hartman <E.J.M.Hartman@math.tudelft.nl> wrote:
> And all 3.x releases still only used the 2.0 kernel (2.0.35 for 3.6).

Except 3.0 which had kernel 1.2.13 as default kernel. If I remember right
there was also some 1.3 experimental kernel included as an option.

regards Henrik
--
The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is:
hc3(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers:
root@localhost postmaster@localhost