[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: slackware 4.0



On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 10:53:12PM +0100, homega@vlc.servicom.es wrote:
> It wasn't that long ago (a few months?) that Slackware released 3.6 (2.0.35) 
> ... isn't it two short for a new release?

    Depends.  Both Red Hat and Slackware have had new versions out the door
in 2 months, and new versious out in 7 months.

> *(actually, I'm asking here, not stating anything at all)*

    Well, as I said, I've got 2.2.1 running on my main machine with no
problems that I see.  Only reason 2.2.3 isn't in there is because I don't
feel like killing my...

     #               Uptime | System                                   Boot up 
----------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
->   1    42 days, 13:03:52 | Linux 2.2.1             Wed Feb 10 01:03:44 1999
----------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

    ...42 day uptime when I am going to move later in the month.  When I
move I'll recompile to 2.2.3 and start the clock over.  :)

> Sorry to disagree here, but that sounds more like an argument for windoze vs
> debian (or any other linux), rather than debian vs slackware.

    I don't know of too many Slackware machines which are still in
production use.  Red Hat and Debian have seemed to take over that role.  I
may be wrong, however.

-- 
             Steve C. Lamb             | Opinions expressed by me are not my
    http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus    | employer's.  They hired me for my
             ICQ: 5107343              | skills and labor, not my opinions!
---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Attachment: pgpsjbKSIISTm.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: