2.4 versus 2.6 patches

Song Sam samlinuxppc at yahoo.com.cn
Mon Jul 26 23:48:47 EST 2004

--- Eugene Surovegin <ebs at ebshome.net> wrote£º

> On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 12:13:17AM -0400, David
> Woodhouse wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, [gb2312] Song Sam wrote:
> > > But 2.4 kernel is still a pet for 8xx,at least. I guess many
> > > embedded Linux development lean to 2.4 kernel for the moment.For
> > > Linux kernel hackers,2.4 kernel was dead but it is alive for most
> > > embedded developers.Right? :-)
> >
> > I cannot speak for 'most embedded developers.'; only those with
> > clue.

Sorry,I got you wrong.I was a little too sensitive to
see 2.4 with "dead".Just gave my opinion on 2.4 kernel
on embedded development.

> > I would not consider deploying anything new on 2.4 today; it's just
> > not a viable, maintainable platform in my opinion.

It was really a puzzle for me why 2.4 is NOT a viable,
maintainable platform but it is used more than 2.6.x
in many embedded development.Also why to see 2.4 dying
without leaving the official maintaining work to some
volunteers? Any special reason?

> I would not consider deploying anything on 2.6 today. IMHO it's not
> mature enough to be used in production environment.

I do agree with the view.I guess it is most embedded
developers's opinion.

Thanks for all attention.


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

More information about the Linuxppc-embedded mailing list