Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
#include <hallo.h>
Grant Edwards wrote on Wed Apr 17, 2002 um 01:14:02PM:
> I did. I didn't find the answer to my question. Can you tell
> me which section explains the reasons why Debian still uses a
> 2.2.20 kernel by default instead of a 2.4 kernel like most
> other distros?
I could try, but I would fail since my answer would not be objective (I
am the maintainer of the bf2.4 boot-floppies flavor).
> My concern is that if Debian hasn't switched to a 2.4 kernel,
> there must be a reason. If I start shipping a product with
Stability. Kernel 2.4.x has this experiment-show taste. Look at the
logs between recent 2.4.x releases. The number of bugs is horrible, though
most bugs are not really critical. Remember that most distros shiped with
extremely patched kernels during the last year, this does not make a
good impression. Though 2.4.x development mostly stabilised now.
Gruss/Regards,
Eduard.
--
Du spielst zuviel Quake wenn...
...Du unten im Treppenhaus stehst und fluchst
"Nicht mal ein Hook hier!"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: