> Personally I think it was a mistake for any distribution to ship the 2.6 > kernel before an experimental 2.7 branch was started to keep the There are no plans for a 2.7 kernel branch. Kernel updates are also neccessary to fix stuff for people. Its a trade off - the more people's systems you fix the higher risk of breaking something. The people who get working boxes are generally happier their box works. Besides you don't *have* to update the kernel. You can keep the older distro kernel, or go even newer (I run the current -mm dev tree kernels for most stuff). You can't go back before about 2.6.12 without funnies but set up right you can run very old kernels with very new Fedora I have a 2.6.9 kernel on my build box - because that was the new kernel last time it was rebooted [root@hraefn linux-2.6.23rc3-mm1]# uptime 11:17:13 up 902 days, 15:44, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 and apart from udev its running FC6 having been live updated from release to release for about 2.5 years. > breakage away from their users - hence the bulk of my servers are still > running a 2.4 kernel. That must be fun. I don't know many enterprise users who consider 2.4 viable for deployment - and not just for lack of supported hardwar. Alan -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
