Re: why still using GCC-2.95 and Linux 2.4.x and 2.2.x?

["T.J. Duchene" <tj@kewlness.net>]

Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> On 9/11/06, James Stevenson <james@stev.org> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I'm still interesting in knowing why people still use GCC-2.95 and the
> > > older kernels, 2.2 and 2.4. As for the kernels, it used to be that the
> > > older ones were more stable since 2.6 was also a development series,
> > > but is it still the case.
> > > The most interesting issue is the usage of Linux 2.2.x series. are
> > > there any advantages?
> >
> > Can you state an advantages of this being the other way around.
> > Say I use a 2.4.x kernel and its been running for a year. Mayby a reboot
> > here / there for security updates or small hardware changes. Why would I
> > change this into a newer untested kernel or compiler ?
>
> I get the point. Does this mean that one won't find a new install
> using any Linux before 2.6.x these days, unless when using old
> hardware?

Pretty much.  I haven't seen any new distribution releases that didn't 
use 2.6 in at least a year or so. The GCC 2.95 branch is also pretty 
much history.  The default compiler for most is some 3.x series for 
server stable and 4.x for desktop.



T.J.