>I can certainly look at 2.0.x updates too, but I also suspect that the
>people who REALLY care are the distribution makers. I don't have any
>strong feelings about 2.0.x - although I _do_ suspect that you have to be
>even more careful than usual, because you're not going to get very much
>testing any more..
There may be more 2.0 users than you would expect. I have 5 or 6
machines with 2.0.x, and in our office there are 4 more.
>The people who are still on 2.0.x are not the kind of people who are
>excited about testing unless they have major problems, and THAT in itself
>is a problem - it means that you get a very self-selected tester list,
>which may result in exactly the wrong output from testing. So I would
This is probably true...
>suggest you only apply stuff that is "obviously correct" from reading the
>sources and directed testing, but I don't care enough about 2.0.x to
>really argue strongly one way or the other..
I dont know much about 2.0.x problems, here's what I know:
- driver updates for ncr53c8xx, network cards etc.
- compiling a i486 kernel on an i586 machine may make the kernel
unbootable or otherwise faulty on a 486 (binutils bug?)
- integrating the bootprom patch and swapping over NFS would be nice.
(patches worked for 2.0.34, not for newer versions)
Regards,
hjb
-- You feel strangely lucky... http://www.pro-linux.de/ - Germany's largest volunteer Linux support site- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/