On 01-09-25 Roberto Suarez Soto wrote:
> On Sep/25/2001, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > Were exactly do we force them? Which debian packages do not work well
> > with a 2.0.x kernel?
> I think that maybe he refers to the fact that, for example, you may
> have formatted your ext2 partitions so they are incompatible with 2.0.x
Well, I once heared about this, but never read an explanation what
exactly causes the differences in the ext2 partitions created while
running a 2.0.x kernel and why they have been introduced.
> kernels. Or to the lot of programs (iptables and related, for example) that
> only work with 2.4.x.
Well, iptables is only available for kernel 2.4.x, but with kernel 2.2.x
you can still build a firewall with ipchains or ipfwadm if you still use
a 2.0.x kernel. So if you want to build a firewall you are not forced to
kernel 2.4.x. The decision which kernel and software to use is still
left to the administrator.
> > That's a nice attitude, which will lead to the situation that
> > people, especially administrators, will move away from debian to either
> > other distributions, a bsd flavour or other free operating systems.
> Have you tried any *BSD? I would prefer any Debian to them if I had to
Yes, I worked quite some time with FreeBSD and also took a short look at
NetBSD. (I hadn't time to install OpenBSD for testing purposes.)
> seriously take charge of one :-) (but again, that's only my opinion; and I'm
Well, I wouldn't agree with you, but that's an other discussion which
doesn't belong on this list.
Christian
--
Debian Developer (http://www.debian.org)
1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16 63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853
Attachment:
pgpgwlZstuGMe.pgp
Description: PGP signature