On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, [gb2312] Song Sam wrote: > 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.
Deployment if you're already almost ready to ship is sane enough, I suppose -- but to actually put more effort into 2.4 wouldn't make much sense. > 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? Because nobody's really that interested in it. For what it's worth, I've abandoned all pretence of continuing to support 2.4 in the MTD/JFFS2 CVS tree. I won't object too hard if someone else wants to fix it up, _if_ that doesn't uglify the 2.6 code. If 2.4 works already for you, by all means use it -- but if you're doing any new development, or you _really_ want people to care when you find bugs, it really ought to be 2.6. > > 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. Out of interest, how many platforms are you using 2.6 on and how does your experience with these platforms support your stated view? -- dwmw2 ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
