Dave Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > From: Dan Stromberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > For Pete's sake, why 2.4.9? Please don't tell me Redhat is trying to > > avoid the new VM? I'm more than a little tired of the old VM swapping > > me into a oblivion. I've put off buying a new harddisk to get more > > swapspace, because I figured the new VM would be in a kernel patch next > > time there was a (kernel) security problem. Alas, it doesn't appear to > > have worked out that way. > > Red Hat's policy is to only make bug fixes to a current > release.
We've updated kernels before - e.g. RHL 7.1 shipped with 2.4.3-12 (very far from vanilla, vanilla 2.4.3 had disk corruption), 7.2 shipped with 2.4.7-<?>. They're both at 2.4.9. The kernel group just felt that the released kernel was the best in terms of stability.> -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
