On 07-Jun-05, 12:51 (CDT), Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 07, Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > In my wishlist there is NO support of 2.4 kernels
> > Hmm. I've never verified this myself, however until recently it was often
> > claimed that 2.6 is still quite a bit worse than 2.4 for some workloads -
> This does not make it true.
Nor does your assertion that "2.4 is obsolete" make it true. There are
obviously enough people still running 2.4 to justify Marcelo's continued
maintenance effort.
I suspect that the problem is that you're confusing "obsolete" with
"not current". "Obsolete" caries the connotation of "useless except for
entertainment/hobbiest purposes". For example, steam engine cars are
obsolete. The 1999 Toyota Camry is not.
Now, it may be that there is no need to ship 2.4 kernels in etch. There
are strong reasons to minimize the number of different kernels we need
to support, and if all of the targeted architectures are well supported
by 2.6, well and good. But simply claiming that "2.4 is obsolete" is not
a useful contribution to that decision.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
