Congratulations,
after 2.4.10 the next usable linux.
So it wouldn't be unwise to do it 6 times slower IMHO.
Kind regards
Wolfgang Pichler
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 1:46 PM
Subject: About 2.4.16
> Congratulations,
>
> after 2.4.10 the next usable linux.
> So it wouldn't be unwise to do it 6 times slower IMHO.
Oh.. 2.4.13 was pretty usable too, so maybe 3 times slower?
_____________________________________________________
| Martin Eriksson <[email protected]>
| MSc CSE student, department of Computing Science
| Ume? University, Sweden
On Thu, 2001-11-29 at 12:46, [email protected] wrote:
> Congratulations,
>
> after 2.4.10 the next usable linux.
> So it wouldn't be unwise to do it 6 times slower IMHO.
You forgot the patch, please resend... ;)
Andy
http://www.kernelhacking.org
Martin Eriksson wrote:
>
>
> Oh.. 2.4.13 was pretty usable too, so maybe 3 times slower?
>
Not for me. I reported an hfs-bug for 2.4.12 up to 2.4.14. So 6 times
slower would be the best for the users and - I guess - developers too.
Regards
W. Pichler
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 04:04:49PM +0100, [email protected] wrote:
> Martin Eriksson wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Oh.. 2.4.13 was pretty usable too, so maybe 3 times slower?
> >
>
> Not for me. I reported an hfs-bug for 2.4.12 up to 2.4.14. So 6 times
> slower would be the best for the users and - I guess - developers too.
>
more/faster -pre and less/slower releases.
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:51:52 -0800, Mike Fedyk <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 04:04:49PM +0100, [email protected] wrote:
>> Martin Eriksson wrote:
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > Oh.. 2.4.13 was pretty usable too, so maybe 3 times slower?
>> >
>>
>> Not for me. I reported an hfs-bug for 2.4.12 up to 2.4.14. So 6 times
>> slower would be the best for the users and - I guess - developers too.
>>
>
>more/faster -pre and less/slower releases.
The true limiting factor is getting an adaquate test environments run.
Slowing releases down wouldn't increase that much..
john alvord
On Thursday, November 29, 2001, at 07:40 , John Alvord wrote:
> The true limiting factor is getting an adaquate test environments run.
> Slowing releases down wouldn't increase that much..
Considering the number of those that did not compile, had errors
introduced between -pre and final effecting everyone, etc., I
doubt that.
Mike Fedyk wrote:
>
> more/faster -pre and less/slower releases.
Thats it. The way the 'old' 2.2.x was done. Slowering releases means
slowering problems any way.
Regards
W. Pichler