Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 09:07:30PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > 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.
Ah, I see. I think I'll ship both 2.2 and 2.4 kernels and let
the customer pick which one they want to use. I'll probably
configure the bootloader to use the 2.4 kernel by default.
Since I'm building for a known-in-advance platform there's not
quite as much risk...
--
Grant Edwards
grante@visi.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: