[ale] Distro Reply

[Geoffrey]

James Sumners wrote:
> Seriously, who really cares what kernel version a distribution ships
> with as long as it is recent enough to get the machine loaded or the
> option to use a more recent kernel is provided? The kernel is not the
> operating system. The kernel is replaceable.

You're kidding right?  I could get a box running with a 1. kernel.

> The Debian stable branch does not get ANY new packages after it is
> frozen and shipped except for security updates. When you install the
> release version of Debian you KNOW what you are getting and can
> expect it to run until the machine catches on fire.
> 
> You are correct, the point of this thread was to find a distribution
> that would be good to use on a production server. You are incorrect
> in making the assertion that the release version of Debian is not a
> good suggestion based solely on the fact that you don't like the
> default kernel version. Several people have tried to get you to
> explain why you make that statement and discount the whole operating
> system because of it but all you return with is something to the 
> effect of "2.2 is old. Newer kernels have newer stuff." While that is
> true, it has not bearing on stability nor is it a good reply that
> supports your opinion.

I'm not going to regurgitate the changelogs and readme files for the 
kernels.  There have been all kinds of changes between 2.2 and 2.6, 
including optimizations and yes, stability issues that will never find 
their way into 2.2.

Just one simple example is that the 2.6 kernel supports prism54 
wireless, prior to 2.6, you'd have to patch and recompile a new kernel.

-- 
Until later, Geoffrey