On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 13:19, nate wrote:
> I take it you don't have USB then. That is one of the most useful
> things that the 2.4.x kernels gave us, USB. I have actually got a USB
> Handspring Visor syncing with my Debian (Woody) 2.4.18 system. I'm
> working on my mp3 player. I
> I take it you don't have USB then. That is one of the most useful
> things that the 2.4.x kernels gave us, USB. I have actually got a USB
> Handspring Visor syncing with my Debian (Woody) 2.4.18 system. I'm
> working on my mp3 player. I remember being forced to dual boot just so I
> co
On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 00:38, nate wrote:
> Can someone explain (or supply a pointer to an
> explanation of) what is wrong with the 2.4
> kernel, that debian plans to continue offering the
> 2.2 kernel with woody?
> Several other distros have been shipping with
> 2.4 exclusively for over a
I agree, I think it works very well the way Debian does it.
On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 00:20, Larry Smith wrote:
I think it works out well the way Debian presents it.
Individuals are free to install the 2.4 version, and
in so doing help to "stablize" it.
I would think that business would
> Can someone explain (or supply a pointer to an
> explanation of) what is wrong with the 2.4
> kernel, that debian plans to continue offering the
> 2.2 kernel with woody?
> Several other distros have been shipping with
> 2.4 exclusively for over a year, surely most
> of the bugs have been shaken
I think it works out well the way Debian presents it.
Individuals are free to install the 2.4 version, and
in so doing help to "stablize" it.
I would think that business would likely run the
stable version, to minimize chances of failure.
--- Reid Gilman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think Debi
I think Debian calls one release stable because although the newer kernels and packages may be fairly stable, anything in a stable release should be crash-proof. No security holes should be present and it should be usable on mission critical systems. I wouldn't want my system running on a For
Thus spake Mark Roach last Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 07:52:15PM -0400:
> On Mon, 2002-06-24 at 17:20, Reid Gilman wrote:
> > The Debian stable release is that, stable. It is not supposed to have
> > the latest and greatest features, if you want to get the 2.4.x kernels
> > (which in my experience are p
On Mon, 2002-06-24 at 17:20, Reid Gilman wrote:
> The Debian stable release is that, stable. It is not supposed to have
> the latest and greatest features, if you want to get the 2.4.x kernels
> (which in my experience are perfectly stable) you can, or you can get
> the testing or unstable distro.
The Debian stable release is that, stable. It is not supposed to have the latest and greatest features, if you want to get the 2.4.x kernels (which in my experience are perfectly stable) you can, or you can get the testing or unstable distro. But that's why Debian has three distros.
On Mon
On Mon, 2002-06-24 at 23:03, Nick Jacobs wrote:
> Can someone explain (or supply a pointer to an
> explanation of) what is wrong with the 2.4
> kernel, that debian plans to continue offering the
> 2.2 kernel with woody?
> Several other distros have been shipping with
> 2.4 exclusively for over a ye
11 matches
Mail list logo
