Re: Ptrace hole / Linux 2.2.25

[Felipe Alfaro Solana]

On Sun, 2003-03-23 at 23:21, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> akpm has suggested something like this in the past.  I respectfully 
> disagree.
> 
> The 2.4 kernel will not benefit from constant churn of backporting core 
> kernel changes like a new scheduler.  We need to let it settle, simply 
> get it stable, and concentrate on fixing key problems in 2.6.  Otherwise 
> you will never have a stable 2.4 tree, and it will look suspiciously 
> more and more like 2.6 as time goes by.  Constantly breaking working 
> configurations and changing core behaviors is _not_ the way to go for 2.4.
> 
> I see 2.4 O(1) scheduler and similar features as _pain_ brought on the 
> vendors by themselves (and their customers).
> 
> Surely it is better to concentrate developer time and mindshare on 
> making 2.6 sane?

I'm no hardcore kernel hacker, but I fully agree with you.
2.4 is pretty stable... Introducing new code (VM, IDE, etc) is just a
bit risky, more even when current 2.4 is 2.4.21 (I would say mature
enough).

________________________________________________________________________
        Felipe Alfaro Solana
   Linux Registered User #287198
http://counter.li.org