Re: [PATCH] 2.0.35: updated Jumbo -8 patch

Andrew Derrick Balsa (
Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:32:05 +0200

Hi Peter,

On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>"A month of sundays ago Andrew Derrick Balsa wrote:"
>> Rev. 8 of the Jumbo patch against 2.0.35 is now available from:
>Thanks .. I am looking for sources of patches that may allow me to stop
>maintaining my old 2.0.25 sources! I have looked at yours in the past. Very

Thanks :-)

> I have been considering going to 2.0.32 (and 2.0.33 and ..) but
>a) every time I begin to feel that the 2.0.3* series has stabilized,
>somebody discovers a new major bug that needs fixing, b) even the most
>up to date 2.0.3* don't have the minimal features that I need.

As usual with GPL'ed software: if you don't like it, fix (or help fix) it! :-)
>What I require, as a *minimum* is:
[list of 19 features snipped]
>How does that compare with your list?

Sounds like a wish list for 2.2.x to me. :-) The people who worked on the Jumbo
patch (myself included) are much less ambitious. We are just trying to get some
of the already present features in 2.0.x to work with more hardware, and fix
one or two bugs, while keeping 2.0.x stable and clean.
>Can't think of anything else at the moment. The situation here is that i
>administer (by default) a net of linux, solaris, and sgi machines,
>running 10/100BT and ATM, and using nfs and nis heavily. This is the
>department of telecommunication engineering, and we have to impress with
>our mastery of multimedia technologies. That means newest
>whoodangledinks installed in every machine when the money comes in every
>year, and either linux makes it work, or the machine is lost to
>windows95 mode forever.

Hmmm, I can't help but comment on that last paragraph. There is a
common misconception which consists in comparing OS's based on the feature set.
This is a special case of the "Comparing Apples and Oranges" logical mistake
(or sophism, depending on the original intentions of the author).

I use GNU/Linux because it is Free (in the GNU/GPL sense), not because it has
features a, b or c.
>Needless to say, I need all this patch stuff to make some of our machines
>work, and therefore I need it in all kernels, since I am not going to
>distribute more than one basic kernel. The only exception I make is for
>scsi-based file servers, which have a separate kernel.

Then again I suggest you check 2.2.x, whenever it comes out. :-)


Andrew D. Balsa

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