Re: Which kernel is the best for a small linux system?

[Grant Coady]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:21:32 +0000, Russell King <rmk+lkml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 09:03:39PM +1100, Grant Coady wrote:
>> By stable I mean rate of change of codebase, patch volume per month,  
>> 2.6 is orders of magnitude less stable than 2.4 by that simple measure.
>
>That is no measure of stability.

You're welcome to your opinion.

>If, say, I merge a large patch in order to support ARM SMP and Linus
>takes that, let's say for the sake of argument that's a 10MB diff.
>It doesn't touch anything other than files which are solely built or
>used for the ARM architecture.

So what?  You're not one of the people here beholden to pushing a 
distro's agenda for mainstream x86 windoze wannabe desktops.

>So, by your very comment above, if all the updates to non-x86
>architectures were prevented from happening in mainline, you'd have
>a much more stable kernel.

Not at all, you choose whatever interpretation suits your world view.

>(Please do _not_ cc or reply directly to me in this thread - I'll
>read replies from the mailing list, thanks.)

Get real

Grant.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/