How stable 12.1 really is? - Slackware

This is a discussion on How stable 12.1 really is? - Slackware ; I keep coming across reports (here and elsewhere in the net) telling about instances in which 12.1 is breaking things that worked fine in previous releases. I was thinking to upgrade from 12 to 12.1, but I am now having ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 47

Thread: How stable 12.1 really is?

  1. How stable 12.1 really is?

    I keep coming across reports (here and elsewhere in the net)
    telling about instances in which 12.1 is breaking things that worked fine
    in previous releases. I was thinking to upgrade from 12 to 12.1, but I am
    now having second thoughts. What is the opinion of contributors to this
    forum? Is 12.1 living up to expectations, or is it a bit of a dud?


  2. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    On Sat, 21 Jun 2008, J. Sommers wrote:

    >
    > I keep coming across reports (here and elsewhere in the net)
    > telling about instances in which 12.1 is breaking things that worked fine
    > in previous releases. I was thinking to upgrade from 12 to 12.1, but I am
    > now having second thoughts. What is the opinion of contributors to this
    > forum? Is 12.1 living up to expectations, or is it a bit of a dud?


    No problems here.


    --
    Cheers
    Res
    --- Usenet policy, and why I might ignore you ---
    1/ GoogleGroups are UDP'd on my nntp server. If you use them, don't
    waste your time or energy replying to me.

    2/ If only cleanfeed filtered out trolls as well as spam, usenet would be
    a nicer place.

  3. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    On 2008-06-21, J. Sommers wrote:
    > I keep coming across reports (here and elsewhere in the net)
    > telling about instances in which 12.1 is breaking things that worked fine
    > in previous releases. I was thinking to upgrade from 12 to 12.1, but I am
    > now having second thoughts. What is the opinion of contributors to this
    > forum? Is 12.1 living up to expectations, or is it a bit of a dud?


    Nothing wrong with 12.1 here. Highly recommended.



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

  4. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    J. Sommers wrote:

    > Is 12.1 living up to expectations, or is it a bit of a dud?


    Rock solid here.

  5. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    J. Sommers wrote:
    > I keep coming across reports (here and elsewhere in the net)
    > telling about instances in which 12.1 is breaking things that worked fine
    > in previous releases. I was thinking to upgrade from 12 to 12.1, but I am
    > now having second thoughts. What is the opinion of contributors to this
    > forum? Is 12.1 living up to expectations, or is it a bit of a dud?


    You will see this with any new release. There will always be something that
    didn't work for someone and maybe it is due to a newer version of the software.
    You only really hear about the things that go wrong. I'm very happy with 12.1
    - seems to run happily on a the desktop and laptop I have put it on so far.

    - Kurt

  6. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    Responding to J. Sommers:

    > I keep coming across reports (here and elsewhere in the net) telling
    > about instances in which 12.1 is breaking things that worked fine in
    > previous releases. I was thinking to upgrade from 12 to 12.1, but I am
    > now having second thoughts. What is the opinion of contributors to this
    > forum? Is 12.1 living up to expectations, or is it a bit of a dud?


    I'm running Zenwalk 5.2 (current/12.1 Slackware based distro) and it is
    taking all kinds of abuse from me without much complaint.

    --
    *===( http://www.jonestheweb.myby.co.uk/
    *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/

  7. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    On Jun 21, 5:15 pm, "J. Sommers" wrote:
    > I keep coming across reports (here and elsewhere in the net)
    > telling about instances in which 12.1 is breaking things that worked fine
    > in previous releases. I was thinking to upgrade from 12 to 12.1, but I am
    > now having second thoughts. What is the opinion of contributors to this
    > forum? Is 12.1 living up to expectations, or is it a bit of a dud?


    All is good for me both on the desktop and the laptop.
    George

  8. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    J. Sommers wrote:

    > I keep coming across reports (here and elsewhere in the net)
    > telling about instances in which 12.1 is breaking things that worked fine
    > in previous releases. I was thinking to upgrade from 12 to 12.1, but I am
    > now having second thoughts. What is the opinion of contributors to this
    > forum? Is 12.1 living up to expectations, or is it a bit of a dud?


    Well, I had problems with my USB drive. I think, the drive is to blame, but,
    then, it works under Windows, so I think there is also something wrong in
    the current kernel. Anyway, since I had saved my essential files on the USB
    drive, I had to go back to 12.0. I returned to 12.1 after I discovered that
    a USB hub helped to overcome the mounting problem (so signal quality may be
    part of the problem). But nevertheless.. there is something in the current
    kernel that handles USB less effective than in 12.0 (in my case).

    BTW, does anyone know a group where I could bring this up? It might be
    useful.

  9. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    On Jun 21, 5:15*pm, "J. Sommers" wrote:
    > * * * * I keep coming across reports (here and elsewhere in the net)
    > telling about instances in which 12.1 is breaking things that worked fine
    > in previous releases. I was thinking to upgrade from 12 to 12.1, but I am
    > now having second thoughts. What is the opinion of contributors to this
    > forum? Is 12.1 living up to expectations, or is it a bit of a dud?


    I tried it. The terminal window in X was very unstable
    and I had to use xterm instead.

    I eventually wiped the partition and reinstalled 12.0.

  10. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    On Jun 22, 7:15 am, "J. Sommers" wrote:
    > I keep coming across reports (here and elsewhere in the net)
    > telling about instances in which 12.1 is breaking things that worked fine
    > in previous releases. I was thinking to upgrade from 12 to 12.1, but I am
    > now having second thoughts. What is the opinion of contributors to this
    > forum? Is 12.1 living up to expectations, or is it a bit of a dud?


    Long time user of Slack, so I have been in those conditions.
    No major issues, little hickups in some places which for ANY Slacker
    "worth his salt" are not a subject of thread.
    Few days on screen and 'normality' returns.
    Can you clarify the "living up to expectations" part?
    12.0 is working on three boxen in our place, 12.1 on my personal
    screen. It needed the "steep learning slope" of aprox 10 minutes and
    that's it.
    Note: don't upgrade, reinstall. Record your /etc directory to some
    memory location that can be retrieved easly and after install copy
    your old configuration files to the new /etc.

    Have fun

    Stanislaw
    Slack user from Ulladulla.

  11. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    khapi@yahoo.com wrote:
    >
    > I tried it. The terminal window in X was very unstable
    > and I had to use xterm instead.
    >
    > I eventually wiped the partition and reinstalled 12.0.


    Just curious, which terminal window under X? I've been using rxvt and
    aterm a lot with no issues of any kind. Seems like it would be easier to
    just update, or use an older version of the terminal program you have
    instead of doing a full re-install.

    - Kurt

  12. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:57:33 -0700, khapi wrote:

    >> * * * * I keep coming across reports (here and elsewhere in the net)
    >> telling about instances in which 12.1 is breaking things that worked fine
    >> in previous releases. I was thinking to upgrade from 12 to 12.1, but I am
    >> now having second thoughts. What is the opinion of contributors to this
    >> forum? Is 12.1 living up to expectations, or is it a bit of a dud?


    > I tried it. The terminal window in X was very unstable
    > and I had to use xterm instead.
    >
    > I eventually wiped the partition and reinstalled 12.0.


    LOL!

    n00b.


    --
    "Bother!" said Pooh, as the woodpecker approached his hot-air balloon.


  13. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    On 2008-06-22, khapi@yahoo.com wrote:
    > On Jun 21, 5:15*pm, "J. Sommers" wrote:
    >> * * * * I keep coming across reports (here and elsewhere in the net)
    >> telling about instances in which 12.1 is breaking things that worked fine
    >> in previous releases. I was thinking to upgrade from 12 to 12.1, but I am
    >> now having second thoughts. What is the opinion of contributors to this
    >> forum? Is 12.1 living up to expectations, or is it a bit of a dud?

    >
    > I tried it. The terminal window in X was very unstable
    > and I had to use xterm instead.
    >
    > I eventually wiped the partition and reinstalled 12.0.



    CHANGES_AND_HINTS.TXT has a note about that.

    -RW

  14. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    On Jun 22, 2:07 pm, Lubiraz Alerano
    wrote:
    > On Jun 22, 7:15 am, "J. Sommers" wrote:
    >
    > > I keep coming across reports (here and elsewhere in the net)
    > > telling about instances in which 12.1 is breaking things that worked fine
    > > in previous releases. I was thinking to upgrade from 12 to 12.1, but I am
    > > now having second thoughts. What is the opinion of contributors to this
    > > forum? Is 12.1 living up to expectations, or is it a bit of a dud?

    >
    > Long time user of Slack, so I have been in those conditions.
    > No major issues, little hickups in some places which for ANY Slacker
    > "worth his salt" are not a subject of thread.
    > Few days on screen and 'normality' returns.
    > Can you clarify the "living up to expectations" part?
    > 12.0 is working on three boxen in our place, 12.1 on my personal
    > screen. It needed the "steep learning slope" of aprox 10 minutes and
    > that's it.
    > Note: don't upgrade, reinstall. Record your /etc directory to some
    > memory location that can be retrieved easly and after install copy
    > your old configuration files to the new /etc.
    >
    > Have fun
    >
    > Stanislaw
    > Slack user from Ulladulla.


    Are there any settings in my 12.0 /etc that are inappropriate for 12.1
    (excluding fstab and lilo.conf of course)?

    I am thinking of just doing a cp -R /etc/* /hdb3/etc/

    Anything wrong with that?

  15. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    On 2008-06-23, john@wexfordpress.com wrote:
    > On Jun 22, 2:07 pm, Lubiraz Alerano
    > wrote:
    >> On Jun 22, 7:15 am, "J. Sommers" wrote:
    >>
    >> > I keep coming across reports (here and elsewhere in the net)
    >> > telling about instances in which 12.1 is breaking things that worked fine
    >> > in previous releases. I was thinking to upgrade from 12 to 12.1, but I am
    >> > now having second thoughts. What is the opinion of contributors to this
    >> > forum? Is 12.1 living up to expectations, or is it a bit of a dud?

    >>
    >> Long time user of Slack, so I have been in those conditions.
    >> No major issues, little hickups in some places which for ANY Slacker
    >> "worth his salt" are not a subject of thread.
    >> Few days on screen and 'normality' returns.
    >> Can you clarify the "living up to expectations" part?
    >> 12.0 is working on three boxen in our place, 12.1 on my personal
    >> screen. It needed the "steep learning slope" of aprox 10 minutes and
    >> that's it.
    >> Note: don't upgrade, reinstall. Record your /etc directory to some
    >> memory location that can be retrieved easly and after install copy
    >> your old configuration files to the new /etc.
    >>
    >> Have fun
    >>
    >> Stanislaw
    >> Slack user from Ulladulla.

    >
    > Are there any settings in my 12.0 /etc that are inappropriate for 12.1
    > (excluding fstab and lilo.conf of course)?
    >
    > I am thinking of just doing a cp -R /etc/* /hdb3/etc/
    >
    > Anything wrong with that?


    I really think you don't want to do that. There are all sorts of
    files in /etc that *you* (or me) are unlikely to modify (maybe 200,
    give or take), as well as the ones which we are likely to modify. I
    expect if you do that (assuming your command will copy your 12.0 /etc
    files to your 12.1 /etc) you will in all likelihood completely hose
    your system.

    Cheers.
    Jim

  16. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    Res wrote:
    > On Sat, 21 Jun 2008, J. Sommers wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> I keep coming across reports (here and elsewhere in the net)
    >> telling about instances in which 12.1 is breaking things that worked fine
    >> in previous releases. I was thinking to upgrade from 12 to 12.1, but I am
    >> now having second thoughts. What is the opinion of contributors to this
    >> forum? Is 12.1 living up to expectations, or is it a bit of a dud?

    >
    > No problems here.
    >
    >


    Hi,

    I'm not sure if it is a 12.1 concern,

    But Icevm 1.2.35 compiled with slack-build make the X system crash.

  17. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 21:15:42 +0000, J. Sommers wrote:

    > I keep coming across reports (here and elsewhere in the net) telling
    > about instances in which 12.1 is breaking things that worked fine in
    > previous releases. I was thinking to upgrade from 12 to 12.1, but I am
    > now having second thoughts. What is the opinion of contributors to this
    > forum? Is 12.1 living up to expectations, or is it a bit of a dud?


    You've had a lot of replies stating that it's working for those posters.

    Now if you want anything more useful than a survey, it would be helpful
    for you to describe which things 12.1 has allegedly broken. Examples,
    please?

  18. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 21:15:42 +0000 (UTC)
    "J. Sommers" wrote:

    > I keep coming across reports (here and elsewhere in the net)
    > telling about instances in which 12.1 is breaking things that worked fine
    > in previous releases. I was thinking to upgrade from 12 to 12.1, but I am
    > now having second thoughts. What is the opinion of contributors to this
    > forum? Is 12.1 living up to expectations, or is it a bit of a dud?


    Here is a pretty critical review of Slack-12.1:

    http://news.oreilly.com/2008/06/slac...est-versi.html

    Still, the author acknowledges:

    "
    During my first three weeks running Slackware I have yet to find a single
    bug. That is something I've never been able to write in a review of a
    Linux distribution before and it is truly impressive.
    "

    Regards,
    Mikhail


  19. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    On 2008-06-24, Mikhail Zotov wrote:

    > During my first three weeks running Slackware I have yet to find a single
    > bug. That is something I've never been able to write in a review of a
    > Linux distribution before and it is truly impressive.
    > "


    Yeah, we've flogged this one, before. The author brings up some valid
    criticisms, but they aren't relevent to slackers. Slackers like Slackware
    for what it is, not what it could be, a critical point which the author,
    like most other reviewers, fails to acknowledge. They all insist on judging
    Slackware based on other OS's, not on what Slackware is, does, and why.
    IOW, another review of Slackware comparing it to other Windows wanna-be
    distros and finding it short. Duh.

    nb

  20. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 21:02:40 -0500, Dan C wrote:
    > On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:57:33 -0700, khapi wrote:


    >> I tried it. The terminal window in X was very unstable
    >> and I had to use xterm instead.
    >>
    >> I eventually wiped the partition and reinstalled 12.0.

    >
    > LOL!
    >
    > n00b.


    I don't think that I'm any kind of n00b yet Slackware-12.1 does have some
    serious problems.

    1. Choosing Arial fonts in firefox or pan, Slackware now decides that I
    really want Liberation Sans. Thank you Slackware but I really want the
    Arial font.

    Build new freetype2 library and I can get truetype fonts in firefox but
    not pan.

    2. OK, I'll compile a new pan binary to solve the problem. But the
    compile fails, something I have never had happen. Is gcc-4.2.3 broken? I
    don't know but I do know that building pan from the slackbuild downloaded
    from slackware.mirrors.tds.net fails as does the usual ./configure, make,
    make install routine.



+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast