Backtrack 3 kernel? Compatibility? - Slackware

This is a discussion on Backtrack 3 kernel? Compatibility? - Slackware ; I posted this to alt.linux but there doesn't appear to be much activity there.............. Can someone say (ok, write in a post :-)) what is the base kernel used by Backtrack 3? That is, is it compatible with one of ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Backtrack 3 kernel? Compatibility?

  1. Backtrack 3 kernel? Compatibility?

    I posted this to alt.linux but there doesn't appear to be much activity
    there..............

    Can someone say (ok, write in a post :-)) what is the base kernel used by
    Backtrack 3?

    That is, is it compatible with one of the major linux kernels, and if so
    which one?

    Thanks,

    FACE

  2. Re: Backtrack 3 kernel? Compatibility?

    On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:29:59 -0400, FACE wrote:

    > I posted this to alt.linux but there doesn't appear to be much activity
    > there..............
    >
    > Can someone say (ok, write in a post :-)) what is the base kernel used by
    > Backtrack 3?


    You don't know how to use Google? You didn't think to check the site's
    website? Here's a quote from Wikipedia:

    BackTrack 3 was released on June 19, 2008. New additions include SAINT and
    Maltego. Nessus was not included in this release, and the developers
    decided not to upgrade from kernel version 2.6.21.5.

    > That is, is it compatible with one of the major linux kernels, and if so
    > which one?


    Sorry, this question doesn't even make sense. Can't be answered.


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org


  3. Re: Backtrack 3 kernel? Compatibility?

    On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:46:56 -0500 in alt.os.linux.slackware, Dan C
    in glistered weave wrote large for all to
    see:

    >On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:29:59 -0400, FACE wrote:
    >
    >> I posted this to alt.linux but there doesn't appear to be much activity
    >> there..............
    >>
    >> Can someone say (ok, write in a post :-)) what is the base kernel used by
    >> Backtrack 3?

    >
    >You don't know how to use Google?


    Is it better than Gopher?

    >You didn't think to check the site's
    >website? Here's a quote from Wikipedia:
    >
    >BackTrack 3 was released on June 19, 2008. New additions include SAINT and
    >Maltego. Nessus was not included in this release, and the developers
    >decided not to upgrade from kernel version 2.6.21.5.
    >
    >> That is, is it compatible with one of the major linux kernels, and if so
    >> which one?

    >
    >Sorry, this question doesn't even make sense. Can't be answered.


    Sorry. That question showed that I was aware of the bt3 kernel, but i did
    not know if it was compatible with redhat, suse or any one of the others or
    if it was functionally unique.......

    Too tough a question I guess............ ;-)


  4. Re: Backtrack 3 kernel? Compatibility?

    On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:24:44 -0400, FACE wrote:

    >>Sorry, this question doesn't even make sense. Can't be answered.


    > Sorry. That question showed that I was aware of the bt3 kernel, but i
    > did not know if it was compatible with redhat, suse or any one of the
    > others or if it was functionally unique.......
    >
    > Too tough a question I guess............ ;-)


    Bugger off, Win-droid.


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org


  5. Re: Backtrack 3 kernel? Compatibility?

    On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:57:33 -0500 in alt.os.linux.slackware, Dan C
    in glistered weave wrote large for all to
    see:

    >On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:24:44 -0400, FACE wrote:
    >
    >>>Sorry, this question doesn't even make sense. Can't be answered.

    >
    >> Sorry. That question showed that I was aware of the bt3 kernel, but i
    >> did not know if it was compatible with redhat, suse or any one of the
    >> others or if it was functionally unique.......
    >>
    >> Too tough a question I guess............ ;-)

    >
    >Bugger off, Win-droid.


    There are some nice people on these groups.

    You, asshole, are not one of them.


  6. Re: Backtrack 3 kernel? Compatibility?

    FACE schreef:
    > On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:57:33 -0500 in alt.os.linux.slackware, Dan C
    > in glistered weave wrote large for all to
    > see:
    >
    >> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:24:44 -0400, FACE wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Sorry, this question doesn't even make sense. Can't be answered.
    >>> Sorry. That question showed that I was aware of the bt3 kernel, but i
    >>> did not know if it was compatible with redhat, suse or any one of the
    >>> others or if it was functionally unique.......
    >>>
    >>> Too tough a question I guess............ ;-)

    >> Bugger off, Win-droid.

    >
    > There are some nice people on these groups.
    >
    > You, asshole, are not one of them.


    Stupid questions provoke tantalizing responses. You, are too lazy too
    visit the developer's own home to look up what you want to know in the
    release notes.

    Furthermore, Backtrack is a Slackware rip-off and I am fed-up with
    script-kiddie wannabees who find they are not tough enough for the
    real Slackware and instead find themselves a rip-off.

    Eric

  7. Re: Backtrack 3 kernel? Compatibility?

    On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:12:41 -0400, FACE wrote:

    >>> Too tough a question I guess............ ;-)


    >>Bugger off, Win-droid.


    > There are some nice people on these groups.


    Where?

    > You, asshole, are not one of them.


    OK, so you're a Win-droid, *and* a clueless n00b.

    Bugger off, doofus.


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org


  8. Re: Backtrack 3 kernel? Compatibility?



    On 2008-10-21, Eric Hameleers wrote:

    > Furthermore, Backtrack is a Slackware rip-off and I am fed-up with
    > script-kiddie wannabees who find they are not tough enough for the
    > real Slackware and instead find themselves a rip-off.




    -RW

+ Reply to Thread