Steve wrote: > > No, it's a good thing... until you try to install > something like Word Perfect, or some other piece of > closed source software that "requires kernel 2.2.x"
You may be surprised to hear that WordPerfect 8 requires libc5. It runs just dandy on Slackware 3.5. > Most people who are migrating to Linux today are > doing so from a Windows experience. Telling them > they can't run Word Perfect or Arachne because those > programs are closed source won't fly with them. They > just want stuff to work. If I ever find a closed-source program that I want badly enough, I'll install the necessary libraries on my system. So far that hasn't happened. However, this discussion arose from a desire to put Arachne in BasicLinux. I acknowledge that this would be a good thing and I have tried to keep enough space free on the 4mb ramdisk for Arachne and SVGAlib (or any other biggish application that someone might want). But a change from libc5 to glibc2 would gobble up just too much space. > I've run 2.2.14, 2.2.16, and 2.2.19. They have > been remarkably stable and reliable. Wasn't there a flaw found about a month ago that exists in all the 2.2 kernels (but *not* in 2.0 kernels)? That bit of news put a smile on my face. > > Many experienced Linux users are sticking with the 2.0 kernel > > and development of that line continues. The latest is 2.0.39 > > and I think 2.0.40 is on the way. > > Hmmm... interesting. Last I was aware of was the 2.0.36 I ran. Check out the header on this message and you will see that I am running 2.0.39. BTW, the stock BasicLinux is happy running on 2.0.39. I've considered putting 2.0.39 into BasicLinux 1.7 but I'm reluctant to give up the nice collection of modules and alternative kernels for 2.0.34 at the Slackware site. There is no similar collection anywhere for 2.0.39. > I wonder if these later 2.0.xx kernels can do ipchains. I don't know. I've always been happy with ipfwadm and haven't looked any further. I do know that 2.0.39 has the ability to do something that is impossible with 2.0.34. I should probably have a browse through the ChangeLog. Cheers, Steven
