[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: starting with 2.7
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Horst von Brand wrote:

> Bill Davidsen <> said:
> [...]
> > I have to say that with a few minor exceptions the introduction of new
> > features hasn't created long term (more than a few days) of problems. And
> > we have had that in previous stable versions as well. New features
> > themselves may not be totally stable, but in most cases they don't break
> > existing features, or are fixed in bk1 or bk2. What worries me is removing
> > features deliberately, and I won't beat that dead horse again, I've said
> > my piece.
> >
> > The "few minor exceptions:"
> >
> > SCSI command filtering - while I totally support the idea (and always
> > have), I miss running cdrecord as a normal user. Multisession doesn't work
> > as a normal user (at least if you follow the man page) because only root
> > can use -msinfo. There's also some raw mode which got a permission denied,
> > don't remember as I was trying something not doing production stuff.
> It had very nasty security problems. After a short discussion here, it was
> deemed much more important to have a secure system than a (very minor)
> convenience. AFAIU, the patch was backported to 2.4 (or should be ASAP).

As I said, I supported that, but the check is done in such a way that not
even making the application setuid helps, so users can't burn multisession
(and some other obscure forms of) CDs.
> > APM vs. ACPI - shutdown doesn't reliably power down about half of the
> > machines I use, and all five laptops have working suspend and non-working
> > resume. APM seems to be pretty unsupported beyond "use ACPI for that."
> Many never machines just don't have APM.

What's your point? I'm damn sure there are more machines with APM than 386
CPUs, AHA1540 SCSI controllers, or a lot of other supported stuff. Most
machines which have APM at all have a functional power off capability,
which is a desirable thing for most people.

> > None of these would prevent using 2.6 if there were some feature not in
> > 2.4 which gave a reason to switch.
> Like 2.6 works fine, 2.4 has no chance on some machines?

Haven't hit one of those yet, although after you get away from Intel I'm
sure there are some.

bill davidsen <>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [W:0.235 / U:19.644 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site