On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> >Because the 2.2 kernel has security fixes (I think), plus it works a lot
> >better with a lot more hardware than does 2.0, and of course it has a lot of
> >new features. It's similar to why I want slink with an updated X, because
> >the old drivers are just not working well on new hardware these days.
> >
> >(Oh, and BTW, *every* other major linux distro has a 2.2 kernel by default
> >now, accoording to the LJ disto comparison.)
> [...]
> >I really don't see the need to keep 2.0.36 in there.
>
> Geeze, I'm not quite sure what you're going for. Are you lobbying to
> have a 2.1rX which include 2.2 updates?
Debian 2.1r3 is already supposed to be 2.2 compatible.
And we'll hardly be able to call this release 'update' if we still ship
with 2.0.
> If so, I could get behind that, but I am a little sketical about it --
> I would want to get some test data about how much better kernel 2.2
> does for folks trying to install Debian.
Joey just produced a set of boot floppies using 2.2.11. Testing will tell
us if they work fine; however, the migration from 2.0 to 2.2 has not be a
major problem for the other Linux distributions, so I'm not too worry
about this...
Cordialement,
--
- Vincent RENARDIAS [EMAIL PROTECTED],pipo}.com,{debian,openhardware}.org} -
- Debian/GNU Linux: http://www.openhardware.org Executive Linux: -
- http://www.fr.debian.org Open Hardware: http://www.exelinux.com -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-"Microsoft est à l'informatique ce que le grumeau est à la crêpe..." -
