On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 05:20:56PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:48:10PM -0800, Jon Kent wrote: > > > Time, I'm afraid, is something I lack. Don't get me > > wrong the work Branden has done is great, what I'm > > trying to point out is that 4.2 is not in stable and, > > currently, will no tbe in stable for a year or more. > > Thats not good. I think 2.2 is still the default > > kernel in 3.0 (I could be wrong) and so on. > > 3.0 also included a 2.4 kernel as an option. Why the conservative > default should be cited as a sign that Debian is "behind the times", I > cannot fathom. Such conservativism has served business users VERY well.
This is a very good point. I just installed debian on one of our servers, but cannot for the life of me get 2.4 kernels to run. 2.2 kernels run like a dream though, and the installation went beautifully. What I would like to see is a 2.2 kernel with smp support. Getting this server working got pushed back as a priority, so I haven't built my own yet. Anyway, Gentoo has a much different niche than Debian, so I don't understand why people are arguing about changing Debian because of it. If Gentoo serves their needs better, good. Perhaps Debian can then focus less on those people and more on others? Why duplicate work, right? (BTW, sorry for the anecdote, I know how much they're hated here. ;-) Sean Proctor
