[ale] Distro Reply

[Raylynn Knight]

On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 18:26 -0500, Geoffrey wrote:
> 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.
> 
And just how many production servers are running a prism54 wireless
card?

-- 
Raylynn Knight <audilover at speedfactory.net>