Ken Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:51:24 +0000, Jon Dowland wrote: > >> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:09:45 -0600, Hugo Vanwoerkom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >>> In general I would run WITH the patches, since powers greater than I >>> have decided they would be a good idea. Debian certainly is something >>> greater than I ;-) >> >> I'm going to look at what these patches are. Back in the Herb Xu era, I >> disliked the volume of backports and somewhat untested stuff that was put >> in the debian kernel. > > Debian Kernel 2.6.8 could burn CD's. > Linus' Kernel 2.6.8 couldn't.
This seems like a timely discussion because if you check the second last issue of kerneltraffic, there is a synopsis of lkml discussion of the 2.6 development model: http://www.kerneltraffic.org/kernel-traffic/kt20041117_284.html#5 Based on the kerneltraffic synopsis, it sounds like kernel developers have changed the meaning of 'stable' in the 2.6 series in an effort to get things into the kernel faster. The synopsis suggests that the distributions (e.g., Debian) are responsible for making the kernel really stable ('really' as in actually stable, not super-stable) and kernel developers focus on development. Furthermore, the distributions have all the beta-testers (read as users?) and can funnel bug information back to the kernel developers more efficiently. If this is true, then this may be a good reason to use Debian kernels, rather than kernel source from www.kernel.org. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
