From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262397AbTLNUf0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:35:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262425AbTLNUf0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:35:26 -0500 Received: from adsl-68-248-191-228.dsl.klmzmi.ameritech.net ([68.248.191.228]:14341 "EHLO mail.domedata.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262397AbTLNUfR convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:35:17 -0500 From: tabris To: coderman Subject: Re: 2.4 vs 2.6 Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:23:14 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 References: <20031201062052.GA2022@frodo> <3FDBC466.3060304@charter.net> In-Reply-To: <3FDBC466.3060304@charter.net> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Description: clearsigned data Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200312141523.15209.tabris@tabris.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 13 December 2003 9:01 pm, coderman wrote: > Jan Rychter wrote: > >So, as for me, 2.6 is a definite no-no. I see no advantage whatsoever > > in running it, it caused me nothing but pain, and there is no > > improvement that I could see that would justify the upgrade. > > > >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). > > For every person who has problems with 2.6, there are probably 2 others > who have none, and enjoy the benefits of the new features. 2.6 works > great for me, and one a number of hardware configurations including: Somehow, working for 2/3, or even 75% of cases is less than encouraging to me. Especially if I must not only set up boxes that I may not touch physically for days, weeks, etc. Or I suggest which kernel for other people to use, due to security fixes (which, iirc, not all 2.4 fixes have been forward ported yet), features, etc. 2.6 is... getting there. and I DO much appreciate the work of the developers. But with devfs deprecated, udev still coming into its own (Nice work GregKG btw); with the myriad of (user visible) input layer changes; the change in focus on initrds (it used to be a nice thing that only serious people use. Now, although still optional, it is now becoming much more important). Or mebbe consider that the last time I tried to install the new modutils (I'm blaming my distro vendor for this), it broke my 2.4 modutils, requiring me to boot with init=/bin/sh and fix it up. Sure. little things, but altogether, they add up to a lot more work to learn. > > 2.6 may not be usable for you, but this has no bearing on the utility > of the branch for others. I have noticed benefits (mainly prempt, > IPSEC, and the IDE device handling) which make it very worthwhile. > - -- tabris - - When asked by an anthropologist what the Indians called America before the white men came, an Indian said simply "Ours." -- Vine Deloria, Jr. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/3May1U5ZaPMbKQcRApmfAJ9IQexnFORYTaOEpTiyPQnHt3qCMgCeJimh 8hR+oaEqXhBXbVB9tRg9g5M= =/Cnp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----