Puppy Linux bit the (size) bullet and migrated to 2.6 (.17 at present).
The Damn Small Linux FAQ has this to say (ref http://damnsmalllinux.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ#Will_DSL_ever_use_the_2.6_kernel.3F_Has_it_even_been_considered.3F )
Will DSL ever use the 2.6 kernel? Has it even been considered?There are currently no plans to move to a 2.6.x kernel, for the following reasons.* The 2.6.x kernel is significantly bigger than the 2.4.x kernel, so it would cramp DSL's functionality. * The 2.6.x kernel drops a lot of support for legacy technologies, hardware, etc, and we want to keep DSL functional on as much hardware as possible * All major improvements that have occured to the 2.6.x tree have been, and are being backported to the 2.4.x tree, by a very active backporting team. And even though Linus said he would not participate in the backporting process this time, the demand for 2.4.x kernel maintenence is about the same as the demand for updates and improvements to the 2.6.x kernel, so even he has helped in the process, though not as much as what he does toward 2.6 development. For evidence of this activity, take a look at kernel.org, where you can see, the 2.4.30 kernel was released, just a few days after 2.6.10.
John R. wrote:
The OLPC ship has already sailed on this. 2.6 is the choice, has momentum, etc. Similarly for distro... already chosen. 2.4 vs. 2.6 It is an interesting question generally though. Tiny Linux distros like Damn Small Linux that target underpowered machines choose to stay with a 2.4 kernel. Does anyone have specifics on why that is? It's interesting to discuss probably not as an alternative kernel for OLPC, but more in terms of what impact the choice of 2.6 will have on OLPC, and how we can mitigate. -- John. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
