What is the advantage of using an oudated version? Simply lack of recompiling the kernel, etc? Or is upgrading a linux OS just as big a process as the move from Windows 2000 to XP, for example?

It really depends, there are a lot of new features with the newer versions such as new versions of KDE/etc. The thing with linux, is it isn't like an 'upgrade' from win2k/winxp, as if you keep the kernel/programs up to date, you can have a slackware 5.0 machine with all the same program versions of 9.0. Some people will stick with a 'stable' version and they will have a hardened kernel, so they won't need to recompile the kernel and re-tweak all the VM/security settings for thier machine.

personally, I just installed slackware 9 which is my first slackware distrobution, so the previous post might be a little off.

I run 2 versions. On my work laptop i use 9.1 with 2.4.25 kernel, latest kde and latest gnome 2.6, gtk 2.4, and I update other software a lot. My private file server that sits at home is running an old 8.1 installation with stock kernel, and is really really stripped down. I think the full install was a few hundred MB. For that machine I feel no need to update. The only thing that it has open to the world is FTP and I update that with every proftpd release.

blud, that's what I am confused about. Suppose one installs an old release. And then keeps up to date with all packages, including recompiling the kernel. What is the difference between that and upgrading to a newer release as a package?

Some of the core software isn't up to date, I have a machine running Suse 6.4 from about 5 or 6 years ago, there is software that won't run on that version without serious headaches, for example yast2 the suse installer and configuration manager wont run I still use yast, installing would be possible but it would mean a large number of conflicts and difficulties updating links and libraries.

It is possible to run an machine with all the software the same as the most recent version of a distro but so long as it was installed from an old version people will usually refer to that version.

I have another machine in my house running suse 8.2 I most of the packages are newer than the most recent version of suse (9.0) however it is still running suse 8.2 just because that is the version I installed.

There is sometimes other differences for example filesystems or layouts may change package managers may change.

Perhaps it is easiest to say I run linux version 2.4.20 on Suse 9.0 or Slackware 9.0 or whatever distro you use.

Ben

Well honestly, I've seen people who have managed to completely change the OS. For instance, they get a RH9 box, and less than a week later, it is gentoo. so if you do keep up with ALL the changes, it really won't be that much different, in my opinion. but as liliafan said, it is much easier saying I run <insert favorite distro here> V. x.0

Comparing RedHat to Gentoo is like comparing Mandrake to FreeBSD. They both use different packaging methods, different libraries, and have an altogether different directory structure (in some areas.)

I'd tend to think that the person started off running RedHat, then switched to Gentoo (or whatever) not by updating libraries and recompiling a kernel, but by installing the new distro in place of the former.

As far as I know, the only O/S that allows you to upGRADE to a newer version (completely, not just by updating files) are the BSDs - I've done it on FreeBSD, but haven't tried any of the others yet. You can start out with FreeBSD 4.6.2-STABLE and, after you're finished, be running 4.9-RELEASE. With Linux, it's a bit different, but essentially, if you upDATE the libraries, applications, and the kernel, you can wind up with the equivelant of a newer version. Keep in mind that there are some things that just won't run on a newer version, regardless of what you upgrade or update.

---

OK, I think I've gone off subject far enough now...

I started on Slackware 2.4 (I think - was definately 2.x) and now have 2 servers running Slack 9.1, plus my laptop.

Hello all, am 3 weeks new to Linux,

Currently running Slackware 10.1 with some updates. X11 6.8.2 GTK 2.4 gcc 3.4.3 and several new things. Runs Firefox and Thunderbird for my web browsing and e-mail client.

I do not as of yet program, but have found the tools and now is going to get the information to use those tools.

KDE 3.4.0 is my Window Manager of choice.

I have come to really Love Slackware and the Linux 2.4.29 I have, as I came directly from a Win XP Pro system that crashed on impact every 3 days. Same system configuration and Slackware 10.1 has run without issue. I have opened 6 VDT's and can have 3 and 4 things in each and it just purrs along like a content cat. Open in one Desktop on XP and gets a warning, open 2 and the whole thing reboots. Decision was made, trying Knoppix Live CD, SuSe Live CD and Gnoppix Live Cd's. Downloaded Debian (woody), FreeBSD 5.3, and Slackware. Well out of all of them,Slackware seems to have been the only one to install correctly and even work for more than one day. User errors created when doing the Linux 2.6.11.6 update and crashed the system. Well in that time, I have learned so much about this, package upgrades, video settings, sound issues, and more. Found a nice utility that will upgrade the pkgs, and remove the old ones. I have found myself preferring this to A Windows system any time.

So much so that:
Windows is not a Program, it's a virus
Once you get it, you can't get rid of it.
Solution: Linux Anti Virus

Anyway this girl is so happy with Linux and Slackware. I am going to be working out some ideas, and try my hand at them to update some programs I want to use. No I don't want to use wine. I want a Native Linux Program that canbe run on Linux, not run through linux.

BenneJezzerette on Linuxquestions.org too, for Slackware support.
Reiserjfs formatted drive. Installs and updates, can give good tips, just has no programming yet.