Re: note on "2.4 is deprecated"

[Warren Turkal <wt@atmos.colostate.edu>]

On Thursday 13 April 2006 16:14, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>         Component in a version are major.minor.sub. Now, given that
>  Linux 1.0 was ages ago, one could conced that the versioning is
>  Epoch.Major.Minor But claiming that 2.5.16 is majorly different from
>  2.5.15 when it comews to support is a facile argument that most
>  people are not gonna buy.

I think more people might be willing to buy the argument that 2.6.16 differs 
quite substantially from 2.6.15 which differs quite substantially from 
2.6.14. The 2.6 kernels are developed with a completely different methodology 
than any before. This methodology leads me to see each new 2.6 kernel with 
it's thousands of lines of changelogs to be the new relevant version. The 
numbering is totally arbitrary when it comes right down to it.

wt
-- 
Warren Turkal, Research Associate III/Systems Administrator
Colorado State University, Dept. of Atmospheric Science