Re: Kernel 2.4

[Andreas Janssen <andreas.janssen@bigfoot.com>]

Hello

Michael Spang (<mike@midgard.no-ip.org>) wrote:

> Although this questionis not specific to Debian, it is relevant and I
> figure someone here has the answer. Why is the Linux community so
> opposed to moving to Kernel 2.6? Is 2.4 really that much more stable?
> Familiar? Upgrading to much trouble? Too many things changed too much?
> I think not--the open source community is a very dynamic one, things
> always change and are upgraded without a second thought. So why are so
> many afraid of moving defaults to the latest stable? 2.4 seems to be
> the default everywhere..(well to be honest, I don't know the default
> for most distributions, but Debian and Knoppix are still with 2.4)

Almost all other mainstream distibutions (Mandrake, Slackware, Fedora,
SuSE) install 2.6 by default. Knoppix comes with kernel 2.6 (although
you may have to activate it using a boot option). Debian Sarge comes
with kernel 2.6 (although I think right now the default installation
kernel is 2.4). The only mainstream distribution I know that does not
have kernel 2.6 is Debian Woody, the current stable release. It is
nearly 2 1/2 years old.

best regards
 Andreas Janssen

-- 
Andreas Janssen <andreas.janssen@bigfoot.com>
PGP-Key-ID: 0xDC801674 ICQ #17079270
Registered Linux User #267976
http://www.andreas-janssen.de/debian-tipps-sarge.html