Post a Comment
"""
So instead of a fork of the kernel mention in a article a couple of days ago, wouldn't keeping the 2.4 produce the same affect?
"""
No. 2.6 represents a huge body of work intended to improve operation on desktops, servers, and embedded. Servers and embedded devices which are still using 2.4 are typically machines which were put into service or designed when 2.4 was not so ancient and dated.
As a friendly heads up, "effect" is the word you meant to use. When one thing "affects" another, it creates an "effect" upon that thing. A very common error. :-)
Debian Sarge shipped by default with 2.4 and has been rock solid for me. I still have many servers running it.
Everyone claims that Debian is outdated and that they need the latest and greatest. I need stuff to keep working, day in and day out.
I do eventually change to newer technologies, but I tend to stay behind the leading edge and I have never regretted doing so. Security errata and support for newer hardware is one of the few good reasons to often move to newer distributions.
I don't really follow the kernel tracking all that much but that gitweb interface is pretty slick. Usually I just go to www.kernel.org then click on the changelog to read any changes but gitweb has the patches and date in a nice pretty format. I guess I'm a simple person.
Yeah, that is pretty nice. Clean. We keep a single file full of release notes for our projects that everyone edits and refreshes on a per cycle basis. I don't really like doing that. We should all use the commenting in CVS and just report on it to see what has been changing. Then again you get a lot of comments in CVS like "..." or "asdfsadf" or "fixed it."




