[ale] kernel numbering

Barry Hawkins barry at alltc.com
Fri Mar 11 22:41:54 EST 2005


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jonathan Rickman wrote:
| On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:41:19 -0500, James Sumners
| <james.sumners at gmail.com> wrote:
|
|>Basically, there is no sense in trying to keep up with the kernel
|>numbering any more. I am still running 2.6.7 on my machine because
|>there are not any remote exploits that I am aware of and I don't trust
|>the later kernels. It used to be that I could upgrade to the newest
|>kernels in the stable branch because they were just that -- stable.
|>Now, who knows which kernel is stable and which is the testing because
|>it is all in the same branch.
|
| And people wonder why I'm spending so much time testing Solaris 10...
~    Huh, I usually switch to a kernel on PowerPC after it has been out a
few weeks with little to no trouble.  When you run on something besides
x86 architecture, relying on older kernels means sacrificing performance
and/or functionality for your hardware.  Plus, with the robustness of
today's bootloaders it's not like you couldn't boot into your previous
"sure thing" kernel if you have problems.
~    If folks want to escape the sometimes rocky road of ongoing kernel
development, Mac OS X, Solaris, and even Redmond are always options.  8^)

Shrug,
- --
Barry Hawkins
All Things Computed
site: www.alltc.com
weblog: www.yepthatsme.com

Registered Linux User #368650
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCMmNk7bZ6kUftWZwRAghhAJ93qZBxFTMioNAgd9rKJ629iGZ0UwCeMVUE
2cQ3VS57eIjO4jrCiej8tXk=
=Jzz+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Ale mailing list