Re: kernel version naming, ISS and SMP
Daniel G. Linder (dlinder@webcentric.net)
Tue, 11 Mar 1997 16:16:10 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Greg Alexander wrote:
> Right now there seems to be a big push for new 2.0 features. I'm not sure
> this is so healthy. Perhaps users (as opposed to silly testers) should be
> told to merely wait till 2.2 so that something _good_ with all the
> modifications in could get out a bit sooner. Maybe not as soon as a 2.0
> backport, but in the end it'd probably be worth it. After all, 1.2 only
> went up to .13, but 2.0 is already up to .29.
I agree with Greg on this point. With all the good press that Linux seems
to be getting, I would hate to have a "scandal" that the most stable
version of the kernel gets a security hold just because of a small
performance hack put in quickly... If people insist, I guess one of them
could consolidate the patches and make a 2.0.X-enhanced patch for that
group. From what I have seen though, the 2.1.X kernel is pretty darn
stable. If 2.1.X is not stable enough for those people, why would
2.0.X+diffs be any better?
Dan