Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S318897AbSHSOLJ>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:11:09 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S318902AbSHSOLI>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:11:08 -0400
Received: from pc2-cwma1-5-cust12.swa.cable.ntl.com ([80.5.121.12]:38903 "EHLO
	irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S318897AbSHSOLI>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:11:08 -0400
Subject: Re: IDE?
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Dana Lacoste <dana.lacoste@peregrine.com>
Cc: Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@lug-owl.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <1029765431.32209.77.camel@dlacoste.ottawa.loran.com>
References: <20020817181624.GM10730@lug-owl.de> 
	<1029765431.32209.77.camel@dlacoste.ottawa.loran.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) 
Date: 19 Aug 2002 15:15:16 +0100
Message-Id: <1029766516.19375.29.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 758
Lines: 16

On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 14:57, Dana Lacoste wrote:
> Are there not several uses of 2.0.x that are not compatible with
> 2.2/2.4?  And if 2.0 is working, then why are you worried about
> being able to use 3.2?  Why do we need to maintain compatibility
> with OLD (not 'low-end' but OLD) hardware if there's an existing
> kernel that meets that hardware's needs already?

How about because in many cases only 2.4 has needed features and also
runs better. On my 20Mb 486 running Xfce 2.4 is materially faster than
2.0

-
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/