In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dean S.
Messing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
>Regarding the Nth (N == a large number) query to NeTraverse (this time
>by Richard Fish) about when the 2.4.x version of W4L is going to be
>out we get this from Mike Badger:
> :: But to answer your question about 2.4, we don't have a set time line
> :: at this time.
> ::
> :: Thanks,
> :: Mike Badger
> :: NeTraverse
>
>Forgive the vituperative tone of my note but this is a useless
>non-answer. I (and I suspect many, many others who use W4L) are
>growing more and more impatient with NetTraverse for giving this sort
>of answer. It was fine when 4.0.0 came out. It was slightly annoying
>when 4.0.1 came out. But, for goodness sake, its been months now.
>
whilst I sympathise with your frustration, if you follow this list
properly (it is not only a write-only medium you know) you will find all
the info you need, recorded several times, to answer the questions you
pose.
As has been pointed out many times, there were late and major changes to
the 2.4 kernel handling of virtual memory & processes - mkivmem in
particular appears clearly very affected by this. If you have the
technical skills to contribute in this area, I'm sure Netraverse will
welcome your help, under an NDA of course, and perhaps even contrive
some appropriate reward :-).
(I suspect that the problem they're trying to solve is probably
comparable with, and indeed related to, porting to FreeBSD)
If like the rest of us, you know your limitations in this area, then I
suggest you bide your time and wait for a quality solution. I for one
value stability in my linux box above most else!
That said, it would be nice if Netraverse would post at least some
technical confirmation of the defence we semi-educated users are putting
up for them!
Bob
--
robert w hall
_______________________________________________
Win4Lin-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.netraverse.com/mailman/listinfo/win4lin-users
