i still don't see why compiling a kernel on your own is a problem. i have never used a precompiled kernel, and i never had problems.
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 08:02:40AM -0800, David Bristel wrote: > I agree, we shouldn't care about "keeping up with the other dists" when > stability may suffer because of it. At the same time, as you have noticed, > there are a number of commercial packages out there that may require the newer > kernel versions, or apps. We do NOT want people to choose Redhat over Debian > just because they can't run the Linux apps they want to. I'm not saying that > I > care for these commercial apps, but a business that WANTS to run Debian, as > well > as run a commercial app should be able to. > > Dave Bristel > > > On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Jacob Kuntz wrote: > > > Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 01:02:42 -0500 > > From: Jacob Kuntz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org > > Subject: Re: Danger Will Robinson! Danger! > > Resent-Date: 12 Mar 2000 06:01:56 -0000 > > Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org > > Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ; > > > > Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:06:01PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote: > > > > our biggest handicap is that we're always a year behind everyone else. > > > > being > > > > a year behind is suicide in any industry. being a year behind in an > > > > industry > > > > > > Have you listened to yourself? Depends on what your aims are; if you want > > > to be hip, cool, most popular etc then I guess 'new' is a higher > > > priority than 'stable'. Otherwise, let's stick with the proven 2.2 > > > series. > > > > > > > aarrgghh. you are missing the point. > > > > what i'm trying to get across here is that we aren't keeping up with what's > > going on in the rest of the world. linux and other free software projects > > are rapidly becoming something very good. in order to facilitate and > > encourage this, we distribution coordinators need to pull not neccicarily > > the latest but certianly the greatest free software together in a usefull, > > functional way. > > > > the issue at hand here is not the kernel. the issue is the release practice. > > i think there should be an initiative to bring out stable releases more > > often. if we don't, it will be just another excuse to use commercial > > software. i don't think any of us want that. on the other hand, bringing out > > any software package prematurly will also discourage use of free software. > > > > i was really hoping the we could get past the knee-jerk reactionary comments > > like "hell no, we won't put in an untested kernel" and get on with "here's > > how we could make more stable releases". > > > > i see no problem at all with waiting for 2.4.10 (or so) before shoving that > > in the users lap. just so long as we do get it in before it too is obsolete. > > > > > > > > Hamish > > > -- > > > Hamish Moffatt VK3SB. CCs of replies on mailing lists are welcome. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > > (jacob kuntz) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL > > PROTECTED],underworld}.net > > (megabite systems) "think free speech, not free beer." > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpIPkedpQTOc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
