On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 08:01:52AM +0000, Alexander Koch wrote: > > Because you have a computer that wont reliably run 2.2.x without > > crashing? > > You are a minority. I don't care about 2.0.x and everyone > not updating is the expert since he knows what he needs. You > cannot tell me the default when upgrading will be 2.0 when > 2.4 is out in some weeks / months. That's not reasonable. > > Even if it works the average Linux user is upgrading from > time to time, because it's Linux. ;-) (if it ain't broke we > fix it)
Many people are running Debian on those boxes that would have been thrown away if we had to use M$ SO's. I have a productive Slink box running in a 386Dx 40, with 8 megs of RAM. I would like to use Potato in it, and still use my stripped down kernel 2.0 in it. I'm sure many will argue, but I find my limited memory is better used with 2.0.38 than with any 2.2. I definitely don't want Potato to be know as the Debian release that prevented 386's from running an up-to-date Debian. > Alexander, > who has heard of two ppl stating 2.2.x crashed in about a year > only in dozens of newsgroups True, 2.2 is the prefered kernel for the vast majority of the cases, but that's not my 386 case or Brian's case. Jordi
pgpilCvKhXfTv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
