Re: Kernel 2.0.30 a bad choice for 1.3
Sven Rudolph <sr1@os.inf.tu-dresden.de> writes:
> Christoph <debian@waterf.org> writes:
>
> > On 21 May 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
> >
> > > Since we know of a number of things that have been broken in 2.0.30
> > > (such as IP masquerading being totally hosed), why are we distributing
> > > that version with 1.3?
>
> 2.0.30 has SYN_COOKIES. This is a critical feature.
Agreed. However:
* Those people that need SYN flood protection will know they need it
and will know how to compile their own kernel. (There are few
people that really need this desperately, in my estimation.)
* The people that will suffer due to broken networking, etc. will not
necessarily know what the problem is, what to do about it, etc.
Therefore, I reccommend using 2.0.29 instead of 2.0.30. Perhaps even
2.0.27 or so if there is a problem with 2.0.29. (I do have a 386 that
2.0.29 will refuse to boot on but 2.0.27 works fine on it).
We could even include a README telling people that need SYN protection
how to get it.
[ Regarding fixing Kernel bugs: ]
> kernel-image, but we must not request him to fix arbitrary kernel
> bugs.
Agreed.
--
John Goerzen | Running Debian GNU/Linux (www.debian.org)
Custom Programming |
jgoerzen@complete.org |
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: