From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 21:40:34 -0700
From: Eugene Surovegin <ebs@ebshome.net>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: Song Sam <samlinuxppc@yahoo.com.cn>,
	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>,
	Embedded Linux PPC list <linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org>
Subject: Re: 2.4 versus 2.6 patches
Message-ID: <20040726044034.GA16491@gate.ebshome.net>
References: <20040726025057.68338.qmail@web15204.mail.bjs.yahoo.com> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407260009310.4160@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407260009310.4160@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org
List-Id: <linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org>


On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 12:13:17AM -0400, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, [gb2312] Song Sam wrote:
> > But 2.4 kernel is still a pet for 8xx,at least.I guess
> > many embedded Linux development lean to 2.4 kernel for
> > the moment.For Linux kernel hackers,2.4 kernel was
> > dead but it is alive for most embedded
> > developers.Right? :-)
>
> I cannot speak for 'most embedded developers.'; only those with clue.

I find this statement almost offensive, btw.

> I would not consider deploying anything new on 2.4 today; it's just
> not a viable, maintainable platform in my opinion.

I would not consider deploying anything on 2.6 today. IMHO it's not mature
enough to be used in production environment.

Just my $0.02

Eugene

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/