Interestingly, LinuxWorld has an article called "The Kernel of Pain" regarding the 2.4 kernel. http://www.idg.net/go.cgi?id=628921
"Derek D. Martin" wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At some point hitherto, Ken D'Ambrosio hath spake thusly: > > On Mon, 2002-01-14 at 12:09, Benjamin Scott wrote: > > > On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Paul Lussier wrote: > > > > Adaptec has had a lot of problems, especially with Linux drivers. > > > > There was one person maintaining his own drivers for linux, then Adaptec > > > > came along and said ... > > > > > > Yet another reason to avoid 2.4. I am starting to think that 2.4 is the > > > Ford Edsel of Linux. At the rate things are going, 2.6 might be stable > > > before 2.4 is. > > > > I have to disagree. I remember 1.0.0, 1.2.0, 2.0.0, and 2.2.0 -- *all* > > of them had their share of nay-sayers. > > And I have to disagree with you. I've generally found that if you > want your system to actually work well and reliably, you'll want to > wait until at least the point where Linus has passed the kernel on to > the "stable" maintainer. Even then, you can have problems. The 2.2 > series didn't really solidify until 2.2.18, which had a security > problem which caused 2.2.19 to be released soon after. Unfortunately, > the "fix" didn't, and 2.2.20 was eventually released to finally > (hopefully) fix the hole. > > > And Linus has never hidden the fact that he has no problem > > publishing kernels that break drivers, his opinion being that, if > > the code is needed, someone'll fix it, and if it isn't, it'll > > eventually get deprecated and then removed. Alas, I've seen many > > discussions about how stupid Adaptec's been lately (~ 2 years) with > > regards to drivers, be it making their own, or publishing > > specs. When it came to SCSI, my mantra used to be "There is no > > adapter but Adaptec, and I am their prophet", but this has, alas, > > changed... and it's not 2.4's fault if Adaptec's made this happen. > > I'm familiar with the arguments, and they make some sense. As for > whether or not it's the kernel developer's fault the Adaptec drivers > don't work: No, but it doesn't much matter either if you have Adaptec > hardware, does it? If it don't work, it don't work. Plain and > simple. > > BTW, a suggestion for people who have this problem: Build an SMP > kernel, even if you only have one CPU, or make sure IO-APIC support is > turned on. This MAY help. Or may not. It worked for me with the Red > Hat supplied version of 2.4.7 which comes with RH 7.2. > > > As for other issues with 2.4 -- they're getting worked on. After > > the fiasco that was 2.4.15, I think they're pretty much to the point > > where it's a usable, production-ready kernel. > > Maybe... but would you bet your company's life on it? > > - -- > Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - --------------------------------------------- > I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! > GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D > Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu > Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org > > iD8DBQE8Q4JVdjdlQoHP510RAh+LAJ4g+1frfXYGXhmSFm9U914phayufwCfQxt6 > BIXhCCh72Y22IJRwjc2P8uw= > =Lu6K > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ***************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. > ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *****************************************************************
