Re: Fedora philosophy (was ATI video comes out of the closet)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Alan Cox wrote:
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.

That's my point. Perhaps if no distribution had shipped 2.6 until one was started, we would have a place for experimentation besides production servers. Or if not, we'd still be running something stable anyway.

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.

I still get the Centos 3.x updates that match RHEL3.

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

In the old scheme with an odd-numbered branch for experiments, 2.2 and 2.4 became very stable at around X.X.20. I don't see that happening with 2.6.

I have a 2.6.9 kernel on my build box - because that was the new kernel
last time it was rebooted

Yes, with 2.6, older doesn't mean better, just different. But where are your security updates?


[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.

It is fun to have machines run for years with virtually no attention or surprises. In fact I think that's the way it is supposed to work. 2.6 hasn't. I was hoping that as it reached the X.X.20 mark it might, but without a development branch for things like changing the disk naming scheme I don't really expect it.

--
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux