Re: Future of Kernel tree 2.0 ............

[Stephen Frost]

--QnGs129iAKyuXRcc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Alan Cox ([e-mail]) wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-07-13 at 22:35, c0330 wrote:
> >   Will kernel tree 2.0 stop developing and regard historical after the =
release=20
> > of 2.6?  I think we would put our focus on much more newer kernel. And =
I found=20
> > this may confuse the newbies, because they don't know much about versio=
ning in=20
> > Kernel.
>=20
> Why should you care ? 2.0 can continue to slowly and cautiously get
> critical bug fixes between now and the end of time providing someone
> cares enough to do the work. There are plenty of 2.0 boxes employed as
> routers, print servers, intranet dialins etc which will probably only
> become 2.4 boxes when the hardware is taken out of service.

I tend to agree with you though I did want to mention that I've got
2.4.18 running on my 386 without any problems so far, just because it's
pretty neat that it works so well.  The machine spends a bit more time
in swap I think which makes some things slow down but that could also be
due to bind9 and sendmail being bigger than they used to be (it's my
secondary DNS server and my primary relay server).  Not disagreeing with
you or questioning what you're saying at all, just mentioning my success
with 2.4.18 on a 386 DX/40 w/ 8M of ram.

	Stephen

--QnGs129iAKyuXRcc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9MEiVrzgMPqB3kigRAgfAAJ97vwBdePjMYMoMEmh0VImyQhhyBACcCcq7
dnYSoi2qL/kgQ/wklgwBrr0=
=D6nM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--QnGs129iAKyuXRcc--