3.2 is it worth it?

[Coma0]

Hey all
I'm fairly new to this, and I'm actually a Morphix man myself . I haven't used Knoppix at all yet. On to my main point. I haven't really heard anything good about 3.2. So is it worth it? Or should I just use 3.1 until 3.2 stablizes. (It seems as though there is an update almost everyday!) Thanks in advance.

[RockMumbles]

I can't even decide how to vote on this one, so I'm not going to.

3.1 is faster, and works good. 3.2 is slower and for the most part works good, but some of the new features are just now getting fixed.

I have dl'ed 3-23 (it was a bad dl), 3-24 (which is OK), and am presently getting 3-30, the versions prior to 3-26 didn't function properly as far as reloading your saved configuration and/or home files, actually I can get either to work by themselves, but not both together.

rock

[Coma0]

The reason I was asking is that I only have a modem . So downloading a version of Knoppix is a major undertaking.

[RockMumbles]

Where do you live?

I've had 3.2 rel.3-24 up on a computer at school now for a day plus and it seems to be OK. Any minute now I should have the 3-30 iso written to cd. I'm interested in getting it going, I have to manually edit the XF86Config-4 file on this computer, and I also get tired of re-configuring the printer, so I'm hoping that the myconfig and home boot options work properly on 3-30.

rock

[good_karma69]

Knoppix is at the opposite end of distros like Slackware, both of which I love and use on a daily basis, the former for demos and remastering and the latter for everything else.

Slackware has always been about stable, fast technologies on a no-bloat, simple system, thats fast, reliable, easy to use and no unnecessary complication or over-simplification (im looking at YOU red hat!).

Knoppix is about cutting edge software, im frankly suprised that Klaus doesnt release a version with 2.5.x kernel!!! Using this sort of bleeding edge software is beneficial in two ways. Firstly it gives the user a host of brand new features, and newly fixed software. Secondly, the more people using this software, the more people are testing it, writing bugfixes and documentation, which benefits not only the distribution but also the software in general. The more people using any given piece of software, the better (unless we're talking about cryptography and the American government, although in that case, crypt is good for the rest of us!)

[Coma0]

Well I don't really want a cutting-edge distro. I think I would rather have one that's stable. Because if it takes me forever and a day to download it I want it to work correctly!

And to answer Rock's question, the US > MA

[good_karma69]

Knoppix is for the most part stable. It certainly runs winXP into the ground when it comes to stability IMO, but sure its no slackware.

Beta-software is largely stable, just isnt as stable as it could be. Also the basic stuff in there, kernel 2.4.20, gcc3.2 etc, is all stable stuff, all of which is in the latest slack release (which is stable!! .

If a new application in knoppix crashes, you can kill it and start it again without rebooting (no consolation if you lose work, but nonetheless, does show that knoppix is largely stable).

My old Slackware 8.1 machine had an uptime of over 6 months before i upgraded to Slackware 9.0

My record for knoppix was 22 days, until I had a powercut and obviously had to reboot.