____/ BearItAll on Tuesday 14 August 2007 08:28 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Linux: Continuing 2.6.20.y -stable
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | ...with the current stable release being 2.6.22, they maintain -stable
>> | patches for 2.6.22 and 2.6.21. 2.4 stable kernel maintainer Willy
>> | Tarreau noted the currently high patch rate in each of the 2.6 -stable
>> | trees and decided to maintain -stable patches against the 2.6.20 tree
>> | until things calm down.
>> `----
>>
>> http://kerneltrap.org/node/14167
>>
>
> If you have a machine in place that is doing the job you intended it to do,
> then there is no need to upgrade the kernel unless you want the extra
> functionality of the new kernel, but you do want patches for potential
> security problems.
>
> I hope Linux never gets too much of the 'Must upgrade to the new numbers,
> because new numbers are kewler' attitude. Yes I know we already have some
> of that, but those are generally the same people who will install a new
> Linux simply because the new one has a nice desktop background.
Non-LTS versions of Ubuntu are a good example. New kernel every 6 months with
the possibility of things changing enough to require some manual work (no
clean install though).
I was using SuSE 8.1 for almost 4 years myself (no contact with Novell).
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: penguins are the greatest birds
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 68 total, 1 running, 67 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|