[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Kernel 2.4

Andreas Janssen wrote:

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.

I would ask the same question Michael did, but the other way around: Why should I update to 2.6 when I'm perfectly happy with my 2.4 kernel? My hardware is completely supported at this moment, so what features (non-hardware-support-related) are there in 2.6 that would make me want to change?

Reply to: