Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
> 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?
Actually, I can't get 2.2.20 by default. I don't see it on stable, and
last time I asked about it I was told to get it off "testing". Kindof
bad since security listings strongly recommend updating production
systems to 2.2.20.
There is definitely some unfortunate imperfection in maintenance of
stable, IMHO.
Nevertheless, I'm still happy to put up with Debian's foibles, as it has
a lot of nice features and I think the whole environment is very
promising. I keep saying I hope to help out more some day, and I'm not
there yet, but I hope to, and more development and QA help is what
Debian really needs. I think the direction it is going, despite some
glaring problems, is great.
--
http://www.eskimo.com/~xeno
xeno@eskimo.com
Physically I'm at: 5101 N. 45th St., Tacoma, WA, 98407-3717, U.S.A.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: