This message generated a parse failure. Raw output follows here. Please use 'back' to navigate. From devnull@lkml.org Fri Apr 19 11:56:14 2024 Delivery-date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:41:41 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751031AbWCPNkE (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:40:04 -0500 Received: from odyssey.analogic.com ([204.178.40.5]:4107 "EHLO odyssey.analogic.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750925AbWCPNkD convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:40:03 -0500 Received: from chaos.analogic.com ([10.112.50.11]) by phoenix.analogic.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:40:00 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Received: from chaos.analogic.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chaos.analogic.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k2GDe0iL007154; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:40:00 -0500 Received: (from linux-os@localhost) by chaos.analogic.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id k2GDdsuf007153; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:39:54 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20060315231029.GF4454@stusta.de> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Mar 2006 13:40:00.0645 (UTC) FILETIME=[1F596350:01C648FF] content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Which kernel is the best for a small linux system? Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:39:54 -0500 Message-Id: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Which kernel is the best for a small linux system? Thread-Index: AcZI/x9j4qMUC0GFS2uDV/HzjKAmKg== References: <436c596f0603121640h4f286d53h9f1dd177fd0475a4@mail.gmail.com> <1142237867.3023.8.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20060313182725.GA31211@mars.ravnborg.org> <20060315231029.GF4454@stusta.de> From: "linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" To: "Adrian Bunk" Cc: "Jan Engelhardt" , "Sam Ravnborg" , "Arjan van de Ven" , "j4K3xBl4sT3r" , Reply-To: "linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 11:57:12PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: >>> >>> On another denx.de page I found this summary (so you do not have to >>> visit the page): >>> # slow to build: 2.6 takes 30...40% longer to compile >> >> A side effect of all the new optimizations that went into gcc since 2.95, >> I would say. > > If you would have had a quick look at the results on the webpage you are > commenting on instead of blindly speculating, you'd have known that your > statement is bullshit since both the 2.4 and the 2.6 compiles were done > using gcc 3.3.3. > >> Jan Engelhardt > > cu > Adrian There have been no systemic problems with 2.4.26 in small and embedded systems -- for whatever that's worth. Stuff might not be "optimum", but networking of all types, and the usual unistd.h stuff all works fine. It's good for systems you don't want to have to muck with. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.6.15.4 on an i686 machine (5589.54 BogoMips). Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction, book release in April. _  **************************************************************** The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to DeliveryErrors@analogic.com - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them. Thank you. - 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/