"Smith, Jeffery S (Scott)" wrote:
>
> A few people have said things to the effect of:
> > <paraphrase>If VME5 doesn't use kernel 2.4.x then I'm not
> > going to bother with it.</paraphrase>
>
> You know, I really don't get this. First, what does e-smith (aka VME5) need
> that is only available in kernel 2.4.x? Second, is this a business need (ie,
> solves a real-world problem), a technical mandate (ie, the system just won't
> work without it), or a case of tech-itis (ie, "it exists, therefore we must
> use it".)
>
> I'm betting it is not a business need, and doubt that it is a technical
> mandate.
Agreed. The bottom line is that we value our reputation for rock-solid
stability. 2.4 is in evaluation.
Allow me to quote Paul "Rusty" Russell, who maintains the Linux kernel
packet filter code (among other things) and is well-known for rewriting
the entire structure for each new major kernel release. He offered this
(public) comment in an email less than a month ago:
"2.4 is still having bugs ironed out of it: the pioneers are still
living in mud huts (sometimes with corrupted filesystems). 2.2 is still
the king for stability, and will be for another 3-6 months, in my
guestimation."
'Nuff said.
Ross
--
Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues
Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives by mail and http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
