> Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 04:11:36 -0500 > From: Audioslave - 7M3 - Live <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Phoebe-list digest, Vol 1 #360 - 10 msgs > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Jarod Wilson wrote: > > > > Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:41:26 -0500 > > > From: Audioslave - 7M3 - Live <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: RTL kernels - Re: Latest UTB Newsletter > > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --snip-- > > > About the 2.5 kernel being a lot better with speed and such, I'd like to see > > > it included and integrated within the distribution. I don't see any conflict > > > with releasing an odd numbered distribution with an odd numbered kernel > > > version. The whole backporting features seem to be like trying to satisfy all > > > of the depedecies needed for certain programs to work. If a crucial system > > > factor was not listed in the dependacies, figuring out the needed libs or base > > > programs would be very hard to accomplish. > > --snip-- > > > > Um, fat chance Red Hat would put a development kernel in a stable > > release. I see a whole LOT of conflict there. Stable releases should > > only contain stable kernels. I'll take stability over speed, thank you. > > You DO understand that odd-numbered kernels are DEVELOPMENT kernels, > > while all Red Hat's x.x releases are stable releases, right? > > I knew that the 2.5 kernel was a development kernel. I did not realize that Redhat > release numbering did not follow that convention.
Knowing is half the battle (or something like that). > Regarding the use of spell > checking. I rarely use spell checking, unless it is incorporated within the > features of the program. Dependacies, or an officially mis-spelled, added to some > dictionary and documented corrputed spelling convention is usually a word that I > will spell incorrectly. Take miscelanious, I never remember the official misspeled > version. I also spelled their as thier for many many years. (I before e, except > after C) Miscellaneous. Sorry, spelling is one of my pet peeves. :) I just prefer to see people spell things correctly, because in my mind, mis-spellings detract from the respect people have for what you say (er, write). > Anyway, if the backporting effort is really a workable option, to using the > developmental version of the kernel, within odd numbered releases. I guess the only > non-backported option would be to build your own 2.5 vesion of the kernel to use > the enhancements within my home use linux environment. Exactly. But note that Red Hat won't provide any support whatsoever for a machine with something other than an officially released Red Hat kernel, for obvious reasons. > For my situation, with computer systems, that are used at work. There is no usage > of linux, for the most part. I think that odd numbered releases should be odd > numbered and follow the developmental phases of the kernel. Of course, this idea > goes to the "added effort" and little added benefits that adding the bp-sec or > bp-broken-opt wiuld convey to an average person, that would be aided with the > visual que. Though, I agree with the ending argument that you cannot save the > world. Though, it is pretty entertaining to do so. I whole-heartedly disagree with your idea that odd-numbered OS releases ought to be development versions. That is what betas are for. Do you know of any other company putting out an operating system in that manner? -- Jarod Wilson, RHCE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "A wise man once said nothing at all" -- -- Phoebe-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list
