Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262873AbVAFPxk (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2005 10:53:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262875AbVAFPxk (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2005 10:53:40 -0500 Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:12472 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262873AbVAFPxf (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2005 10:53:35 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 10:50:03 -0500 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Adrian Bunk , William Lee Irwin III , Diego Calleja , Willy Tarreau , davidsen@tmr.com, aebr@win.tue.nl, solt2@dns.toxicfilms.tv, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: starting with 2.7 Message-ID: <20050106155003.GA22502@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o , Marcelo Tosatti , Adrian Bunk , William Lee Irwin III , Diego Calleja , Willy Tarreau , davidsen@tmr.com, aebr@win.tue.nl, solt2@dns.toxicfilms.tv, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20050103011935.GQ29332@holomorphy.com> <20050103053304.GA7048@alpha.home.local> <20050103142412.490239b8.diegocg@teleline.es> <20050103134727.GA2980@stusta.de> <20050104125738.GC2708@holomorphy.com> <20050104150810.GD3097@stusta.de> <20050104153445.GH2708@holomorphy.com> <20050104165301.GF3097@stusta.de> <20050104210117.GA7280@thunk.org> <20050106094519.GD20203@logos.cnet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050106094519.GD20203@logos.cnet> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1182 Lines: 27 On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 07:45:19AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > You got to be kidding now? > > 99% of the features distributions have applied to their 2.4 based kernels > are "enterprise" features such as direct IO, AIO, etc. > > Really I can't recall any "attempt to make 2.4 stable" from the distros, > its mostly "attempt to backport nice v2.6 feature". Sorry, those were two separate points; I should have been more careful to keep the two separate. I believe 2.4 has been less successful than other stable series for two reasons. The first is the very large divergence of what the distributions (and therefore most users) were actually using from each other and from kernel.org. The second is the lack of stability, in particular with systems with HIGHMEM configured, where low memory exhuastion is the first thing I suspect when a customer tells me that a 2.4-based system with a lot of memory freezes up. - Ted - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/