--- Mark Hahn <hahn@physics.mcmaster.ca> wrote:
> > * now, 2.6 (or whatever) seems like a very bad
> choice
> > for us.
>
> have you actually tried?
didn't need to. already told you what size the bare
bones 2.5 is, and I doubt it will get any smaller. au
contraire...
>
> > Why are old versions being actively maintained
> anyway?
>
> because there are old systems where it makes sense
> to avoid upgrades.
>
> > Isn't that a realization that those old versions
> are
> > better suited for some tasks than the new one? Why
>
> no, it's not.
>
oh, but it is! even using your own explanation: why
does it make sense to avoid upgrades on those old
systems? because those are better without, otherwise
it would make sense to upgrade. so the old stuff
performs better (whatever that means) on those old
systems than the new one. q.e.d.
not to mention that "active maintenance" of the old
kernels doesn't really save you from upgrades... just
upgrades to the "new and improved" kernel...
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 22:00:57 EST