[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [security] Big problem on 2.0.x? (fwd)

    >I can certainly look at 2.0.x updates too, but I also suspect that the
    >people who REALLY care are the distribution makers. I don't have any
    >strong feelings about 2.0.x - although I _do_ suspect that you have to be
    >even more careful than usual, because you're not going to get very much
    >testing any more..

    There may be more 2.0 users than you would expect. I have 5 or 6
    machines with 2.0.x, and in our office there are 4 more.

    >The people who are still on 2.0.x are not the kind of people who are
    >excited about testing unless they have major problems, and THAT in itself
    >is a problem - it means that you get a very self-selected tester list,
    >which may result in exactly the wrong output from testing. So I would

    This is probably true...

    >suggest you only apply stuff that is "obviously correct" from reading the
    >sources and directed testing, but I don't care enough about 2.0.x to
    >really argue strongly one way or the other..

    I dont know much about 2.0.x problems, here's what I know:

    - driver updates for ncr53c8xx, network cards etc.
    - compiling a i486 kernel on an i586 machine may make the kernel
    unbootable or otherwise faulty on a 486 (binutils bug?)
    - integrating the bootprom patch and swapping over NFS would be nice.
    (patches worked for 2.0.34, not for newer versions)

    You feel strangely lucky... - Germany's largest volunteer Linux support site

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.020 / U:49.476 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site