[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Phoebe-list digest, Vol 1 #360 - 10 msgs

Jarod Wilson wrote:

> > Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:41:26 -0500
> > From: Audioslave - 7M3 - Live <creed7m3live@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: phoebe-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: RTL kernels - Re: Latest UTB Newsletter
> > Reply-To: phoebe-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> --snip--
> > About the 2.5 kernel being a lot better with speed and such, I'd like to see
> > it included and integrated within the distribution. I don't see any conflict
> > with releasing an odd numbered distribution with an odd numbered kernel
> > version. The whole backporting features seem to be like trying to satisfy all
> > of the depedecies needed for certain programs to work. If a crucial system
> > factor was not listed in the dependacies, figuring out the needed libs or base
> > programs would be very hard to accomplish.
> --snip--
> Um, fat chance Red Hat would put a development kernel in a stable
> release. I see a whole LOT of conflict there. Stable releases should
> only contain stable kernels. I'll take stability over speed, thank you.
> You DO understand that odd-numbered kernels are DEVELOPMENT kernels,
> while all Red Hat's x.x releases are stable releases, right?

I knew that the 2.5 kernel was a development kernel. I did not realize that Redhat
release numbering did not follow that convention. Regarding the use of spell
checking.  I rarely use spell checking, unless it is incorporated within the
features of the program. Dependacies, or an officially mis-spelled, added to some
dictionary and documented  corrputed spelling convention is usually a word that I
will spell incorrectly. Take miscelanious, I never remember the official misspeled
version. I also spelled their as thier for many many years. (I before e, except
after C)

Anyway, if the backporting effort is really a workable option, to using the
developmental version of the kernel, within odd numbered releases. I guess the only
non-backported option would be to build your own 2.5  vesion of the kernel to use
the enhancements within my home use linux environment.

For my situation, with computer systems, that are used at work.  There is no usage
of linux, for the most part.  I think that odd numbered releases should be odd
numbered and follow the developmental phases of the kernel. Of course, this idea
goes to the "added effort" and little added benefits that adding the bp-sec or
bp-broken-opt  wiuld convey to an average person, that would be aided with the
visual que. Though, I agree with the ending argument that you cannot save the
world. Though, it is pretty entertaining to do so.


> PERHAPS you'd see a late 2.5-series kernel in an 8.1.92 beta or similar,
> leading up to a 2.6 kernel in Red Hat Linux 8.2, but for obvious
> reasons, Red Hat isn't going to put a relatively untested dev kernel in
> a release.
> And back-porting is a good thing. It isn't just trying to satisfy
> dependencies (spell check, please) needed for certain programs to work.
> It provides enhancements from the development kernels that have been
> tested, deemed stable and worth adding to the already stable kernel
> series. What good is that enhancement if you're running it on an
> otherwise unstable kernel? Back-porting makes more sense until all of
> the dev kernel features are frozen and deemed suitable to migrate to the
> next stable kernel series.
> While maybe you can afford a bit of instability as a trade-off for speed
> on the system you use at home, many people are using Red Hat Linux in
> mission-critical situations, where stability is of far greater
> importance than a bit of a speed boost. Hell, I still run 7.3 on many of
> my mission-critical systems. There are plenty of people of the opinion
> that you shouldn't ever run x.0 releases on a production system. I know
> I wouldn't want to have to support systems with unstable kernels, so do
> you think Red Hat would?!?
> In summary, putting a dev kernel in a stable release is a really stupid
> idea. I have to question the intelligence of anyone who doesn't see the
> problem there.
> --
> Jarod Wilson, RHCE
> <jcw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> "A wise man once said nothing at all"
> --
> --
> Phoebe-list mailing list
> Phoebe-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list

If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, then
you clearly don't understand the situation.

Phoebe-list mailing list

[Home]     [Kernel List]     [Red Hat Install]     [Red Hat Watch List]     [DVD Store]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

Powered by Linux