Re: Memory Rusting Effect [re: Linux hostile to poverty]

Kenneth Albanowski (
Sat, 25 Jul 1998 00:09:17 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 22 Jul 1998, Anthony Barbachan wrote:

> >I find this a bit unfortunate, but it is perhaps inevitable. If nothing
> >else, we should remember that there is no particular reason why Linux 2.2
> >_must_ perform as well as 2.0 on low-end hardware, as long as this is made
> >abundantly clear to everyone, and 2.0 is still available and supported.
> >It's not as if 2.0 will (or can) be "pulled off the shelves", and have its
> >the support staff decommissioned...
> Of course it will. I do not see much support for 1.2.13 out there these
> days.

Semantics, I suppose: it's not as is there is one company providing all of
the commercial support. Both the source code and the folks who wrote it
will be accessible in the immediate future. Moreover, the development
model (as well as the various UNIX standards) seems to make cross-version
application software the rule instead of exception. But that won't apply
to drivers, which will probably be the main cost of separate trees.

Kenneth Albanowski (, CIS: 70705,126)

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to Please read the FAQ at