Re: Choosing which 2.4 kernel tree to use for OldWorld
On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 09:31:26PM +0200, Michel Lanners wrote:
> On 13 Aug, this message from Mike Fedyk echoed through cyberspace:
> > On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 09:25:29AM -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> >> What kernel is recommended for use on the tibook? I've currently got
> >> 2.4.7 from mvista, and the kerboard is hosed and the hardware clock
> >> doesn't work.
> >>
> >
> > Let me ask this question also, but for oldworld machines, specifically,
> > 7200, 6500, and oldworld g3.
> >
> > Will kernel.org ppc 2.4 kernels be ok for these systems? The systems I
> > would be running would mostly be headless routers, file & print servers, and such.
>
>
> Either kernel.org 2.2 tree, or the bk or benh 2.4 trees. 2.4 kernel.org
> isn't ready yet.
>
> If you want to keep your servers running quietly in a corner without
> touching them, 2.2 might be your best bet. Since you will not need all
> the fancy new hardware support in 2.4, 2.2 is your best stable solution.
> It's a bit slower than 2.4, but that shouldn't matter for your use.
>
For the machines that I *really* need to humm away, and keep working I'll
use 2.2.
For 2.4, which tree breaks the least? Hopefully, there is a tree that will
supply a bootable kernel that doesn't break core functionality depending on
the time of day...
Most of the complaints have been for changes affecting newer hardware. Do I
have to worry about Oldworld functionality breaking as often?
TIA,
Mike
Reply to: