Re: Kernel bloat 2.4 vs. 2.5

• Next message: Ingo Molnar: "Re: [patch] "HT scheduler", sched-2.5.63-B3"
• Previous message: Ranjeet Shetye: "Re: good info on memory management"
• Maybe in reply to: Daniel Egger: "Kernel bloat 2.4 vs. 2.5"
• Next in thread: Daniel Egger: "Re: Kernel bloat 2.4 vs. 2.5"
• Reply: Daniel Egger: "Re: Kernel bloat 2.4 vs. 2.5"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Egger <degger@fhm.edu>
Date: 06 Mar 2003 04:25:15 +0100
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
Subject: Re: Kernel bloat 2.4 vs. 2.5
 
> Am Mit, 2003-03-05 um 00.41 schrieb Andrew Morton:
 
> As I said, the 2.4 kernel has almost everything built in while 2.5 was
> stripped down to minimum size possible. The latter is still unusable
> since modules do not work. :/
 
??? I'm using 2.5 and modules do work perfectly... Did you
get Rusty's latest modutils?
 
   Felipe
 

-- 
______________________________________________
http://www.linuxmail.org/
Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr
Powered by Outblaze
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Ingo Molnar: "Re: [patch] "HT scheduler", sched-2.5.63-B3"
• Previous message: Ranjeet Shetye: "Re: good info on memory management"
• Maybe in reply to: Daniel Egger: "Kernel bloat 2.4 vs. 2.5"
• Next in thread: Daniel Egger: "Re: Kernel bloat 2.4 vs. 2.5"
• Reply: Daniel Egger: "Re: Kernel bloat 2.4 vs. 2.5"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 22:00:32 EST