From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265333AbTLNBxf (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:53:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265334AbTLNBxe (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:53:34 -0500 Received: from relay.pair.com ([209.68.1.20]:46351 "HELO relay.pair.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S265333AbTLNBxd (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:53:33 -0500 X-pair-Authenticated: 68.42.66.6 Subject: Re: 2.4 vs 2.6 From: Daniel Gryniewicz To: Jan Rychter Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <20031201062052.GA2022@frodo> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1071366809.4426.20.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:53:29 -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 20:08, Jan Rychter wrote: > So please be careful when making statements like that. 2.6 is *NOT* > stable enough nor ready enough for people to use it, unless those people > have a narrow range of hardware on which the 2.6 kernel has actually > been tested (translation: they have the same hardware as the main > developers do). I have a brand-spanken-new laptop (less than a month old), and all my hardware works great. In fact, ATI drivers (only in pre-release X) only work on 2.6, and ACPI never worked on 2.4. So, it works better for me than on 2.4. Please be careful when saying that 2.4 is better than 2.6, it's only that way for a narrow set of hardware. -- Daniel Gryniewicz