Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:38:00 -0200 | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: starting with 2.7 |
| |
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 08:59:08AM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 07:45:19AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > You got to be kidding now? > > 99% of the features distributions have applied to their 2.4 based kernels > > are "enterprise" features such as direct IO, AIO, etc. > > Really I can't recall any "attempt to make 2.4 stable" from the distros, > > its mostly "attempt to backport nice v2.6 feature". > > Do you have any example? > [tytso's comments elided] > > It took sometime to happen, but instability related to "high memory > > pressure" has been fixed in almost all cases long ago (the only > > remaining issue to my knowledged is loopback device with highmemory). > > I hardly see complaints of "crashes under load" problems since > > v2.4.19/20 or so. > > I am unfortunately holding 2.4.x' earlier history against it. While you > were maintaining it, much of what we're discussing was resolved. > Unfortunately, the stabilization you're talking about was essentially > too late; distros had long-since wildly diverged, they had frozen on > older releases, and the damage to Linux' reputation was already done. > I'm also unaware of major commercial distros (e.g. Red Hat, SuSE) using > 2.4.x more recent than 2.4.21 as a baseline, and it's also notable that > one of the largest segments of the commercial userbase I see is using a > distro kernel based on 2.4.9.
I agree.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |