--- Eugene Surovegin <ebs at ebshome.net> wrote?? > On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 12:13:17AM -0400, David > Woodhouse wrote: > > > > On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, [gb2312] Song Sam wrote: > > > But 2.4 kernel is still a pet for 8xx,at least. I guess many > > > embedded Linux development lean to 2.4 kernel for the moment.For > > > Linux kernel hackers,2.4 kernel was dead but it is alive for most > > > embedded developers.Right? :-) > > > > I cannot speak for 'most embedded developers.'; only those with > > clue.
Sorry,I got you wrong.I was a little too sensitive to see 2.4 with "dead".Just gave my opinion on 2.4 kernel on embedded development. > > I would not consider deploying anything new on 2.4 today; it's just > > not a viable, maintainable platform in my opinion. It was really a puzzle for me why 2.4 is NOT a viable, maintainable platform but it is used more than 2.6.x in many embedded development.Also why to see 2.4 dying without leaving the official maintaining work to some volunteers? Any special reason? > I would not consider deploying anything on 2.6 today. IMHO it's not > mature enough to be used in production environment. I do agree with the view.I guess it is most embedded developers's opinion. Thanks for all attention. Sam ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
