David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote?? > On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, [gb2312] Song Sam wrote: > > 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. Here nobody perhaps means "no official maintainers",those top level kernel hackers. > 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. Thanks for this guideness.I am also interested in 2.6.x development on embedded application.But for the sake of stable and useable,I perfer to 2.4.x for the moment.Anyway,2.4 is a sign of mature for Linux. Now I know what's the real reason of End Development for official 2_4_devel. > Out of interest, how many platforms are you using 2.6 on and how does > your experience with these platforms support your stated view? Good point.I should take back my assumption to say "most" from now on. For your insterest,just 2 platforms was used by me.One is RPXlite DW,which could run on 2.4.x and 2.6.7 with RAMDISK root file system.Another it's modified board,which could only run with 2.4.x by now. Thanks a lot for your attention on this point. Sam ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
