Nate Bargmann wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > Nate Bargmann wrote: > > > ... I'm running an ancient 2.6.18-4-686 kernel ... > > > > That "ancient" Linux 2.6.18 kernel is much newer than your ThinkPad > > model T23. I wouldn't throw stones at it. > > Wouldn't throw stones at what? The 2.6.18 kernel? Not the T23 as it > is quite a cpable machine ...
I am sorry but you tickled a pet peeve of mine. People often equate advanced age with decreased capabilities. (I'm not dead yet!) That sounded exactly what you were doing there. Because the 2.6.18 has been around for a while it must automatically be bad and evil and to be stamped out with dogs and torches! But in the same breath talking about the virtues of the T23 (a find machine by the way) which is much more "ancient" by comparison. In software age will not change the capabilities. It does not degrade over time. The 2.6.18 is much newer than your T23 and should be quite capable of operating the hardware (the main purpose of the kernel) and suspending and resuming just fine and is a known good performer there. I just can't understand why so many users say such disparaging things about many known good software versions. This is true not just of the kernel but of software in general. Known good versions are known good because they have been proven through a lot of use and history. It is *impossible* to have a known good performer that is also today's bleeding edge build. Give it a year and we will see how well it proves out. > which now serves in stationary duty due to two broken hinges. Yeah, > I'd love to get a T42, but can't jusrify that so long as the T23 serves > me well. I still use dialup and the T23's Lucent modem is better > supported than the one in the T42 which required buying a non-free > package to operate a full speed. Perhaps when the time comes I'll > leapfrog to a T60 as it appears to be fairly well supported. Hmm... You understand the value of your fine T23 but at the same time completely miss the value of known good software versions such as the 2.6.18 kernel used in Debian stable. I don't understand how you can slam one by calling it "ancient" and yet at the same time extol the virtues of the other, which is by most examinations older and in this instance actually is physically degenerating because of the broken hinges (replaceable by the way). This is a study in contradictions. Sorry for my rant. Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
