On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:19:34PM +0100, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >rhabarber1848 wrote: >> Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >> >>> I think that improving NPTL would be a good thing, i suppose that >>> we ultimately want to abandon the other impls in favour of it, at >>> least mid- or long-term. >> >> Hi, >> >> would it then still be possible to use uClibc with Linux kernel 2.4.x? >I'm wondering if does it make sense n 2009 still using kernel 2.4... >just a my opinion.
my stance on 2.4 vs. 2.6 is that if there are regressions in 2.6 compared to 2.4 then 2.6 should be fixed ;P > >> Especially in the embedded sector kernel 2.4 is often used because it is >> smaller than 2.6. >> >embedded worlds is now moving to NAND, and size will not longer a big >deal. I disagree, size does matter if it increases for no good reason. > And what about performance ? O(1) scheduler that came with kernel >2.6, just to talk about one of the most important change in 2.6 series ? >should not be the time to upgrade ? Indeed. And i do agree that 2.6 is too big, but that's not exactly news. _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
