Adam Scriven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >Kernel sources are *always* available at www.kernel.org.
> They are, but he's not advanced enough yet to compile his own kernel.
> He's a very bright guy, and he'll figure it out eventually, but it's a very
> minor hobby for him right now, and he just hasn't gotten there yet.
> But, because of the slow updates, and because it is now 2 releases behind,
> it's difficult to argue the change from RedHat to Debian. The only stable
> Debian release is Slink, which is 2.0.36. He has that already with RedHat
> 5.2 (I think that's what he's got, it's definitely 2.0.36). If he were to
> upgrade to RedHat 6, which has been out for quite a long time, he'd get (I
> believe) 2.2. The 2.2 kernel has made some great leaps from the 2.0 series
> of kernels that he'd like to use (diald upgrades, to mention just one), but
> the upgrade from 2.0 to 2.2 for RedHat is, AFAIK, rather strange, and
> unadvised by RedHat themselves (last I checked).
> So, for him to go to 2.2, and get the upgrades that he wants, he needs to
> reinstall. He has no problem with this, and I've recommend Debian, but no
> matter how "stable" the frozen version is, it IS STILL frozen, and not the
> officially released version, so he's not comfortable switching to it.
> So that leaves him with RedHat, since he understands it.
A name is just a name ... (or, as Gertrude Stein puts it: a rose is a
rose is a rose) -- that is: STABLE in other distributions often seems
less stable as UNSTABLE in Debian. It merely is a label which someone
has set upon a bunch of programs.
> Also, as you mentioned, kernel 2.4 is out now, however many "known
> problems" it has, it is out. 2.2 has "known problems" as well, it just has
> less of them.
> Which means that Debian, for all it's good things (and I am using it, and I
> will continue to use it, because I like it), is SLOW in it's release
> schedule, and this IS a deterrent for some intelligent people, who are
> LEARNING Linux.
Well, one of the things he should learn is that Debian FROZEN indeed
seems more stable as other distributions which call themselves STABLE.
"Stephan Hachinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> hamm (see the above issue). Some months later, I helped a friend who had
> problems with a SUSE setup. When I wanted to configure something, YAST
> crashed, and after this I was absolutely convinced of using debian and not
> SUSE because debian tools work reliably. SUSE has not even a tool like
> modconf!!!
You see the point? There you are with a version called STABLE which in
reality is *UNSTABLE*! (When had you such an experience with FROZEN
last?)
Regarding the kernel version I can here (with the so called UNSTABLE
woody) issue the command:
$ apt-cache search kernel-image
and receive:
kernel-image-2.2.17 - Linux kernel binary image for version 2.2.17.
kernel-image-2.2.17-compact - Linux kernel binary image.
kernel-image-2.2.17-idepci - Linux kernel binary image.
kernel-image-2.2.17-ide - Linux kernel binary image for version 2.2.17.
kernel-image-2.4.0-test5 - Linux kernel binary image for version 2.4.0-test5
(running the latter just now.)
Greetings,
joachim
