Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
On Wednesday 17 April 2002 21:46, jeff wrote:
> well, how about a few of us on the list get our heads together and make
> our own debianized release with all the new goodies we would like to
> see. i think it could be done - maybe a little part-time project - for
> peeps who could dedicate at least 4-10 hours a week or somethin' like
> that. i like all the new stuff too...haven't seen any real problems even
> with unstable...but, then again, i'm only using debian at home...but i
> think tackling our own distro of debian would be - for lack of a more
> intelligent term - pretty cool. that is the nature of linux? no? 'do it
> using kernel 2.4.18, Windowmaker, and unstable...wheee!
> p.s. i've been playing with CRUX linux too...it might be a nifty
> alternative...it's light, fast, and uses mostly new packages...pretty
> slick! no apt though :-\
We use woody at school with a 2.4.18 kernel without the slightest probs. I use
it also at home.
I don't think that there is any reson to _not_ take the 2.4 as default. Its
very stable and MUCH better than 2.2. I also think that woody should use ext3
Shipping a distro today with a standard 2.2 kernel is not smart. Because 95%
need to update because they want XFree 4 working probbably with their nvidia
cards. Iptables woud be missing and so on.
Raffaele Sandrini <email@example.com>
Annoyed about M$ Windows? Don't worry. Try Linux! (www.linux.org)
For encrypted Mail get my Public Key from "search.keyserver.net"
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com