Hi Zoltan! On 26 Jun 2007, at 16:37, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
What you mean by "stable" pretty much excludes any serious development, without which the Linux kernel would very soon be obsolete. If you want a stable system, then don't change it. If you update to a kernel which is 2.5 years newer, you simply cannot have stability, because that would mean stagnation, aka "death".If your vendor don't want to support you anymore, try getting the source.I was asking for a stable kernel, like 2.4, 2.2, 2.0 were before. 2.6 is not. It's a great kernel, better than that of MacOS X, I never said you were doing a bad job, quite the contrary. I wouldn't be using Linux since 10 years if I thought it stinks. I never asked support for closed source drivers, only a stable kernel. Whatever "stable" means.
Ciao, Roland -- TU Muenchen, Physik-Department E18, James-Franck-Str., 85748 Garching Telefon 089/289-12575; Telefax 089/289-12570 -- CERN office: 892-1-D23 phone: +41 22 7676540 mobile: +41 76 487 4482 -- Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. - Benjamin Franklin -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12GS/CS/M/MU d-(++) s:+ a-> C+++ UL++++ P+++ L+++ E(+) W+ !N K- w--- M + !V Y+
PGP++ t+(++) 5 R+ tv-- b+ DI++ e+++>++++ h---- y+++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part