Re: debian and linus kernel, the difference??

From: Brian P. Flaherty (bxf4_at_psu.edu)
Date: 11/30/04

  • Next message: Mike M: "Re: remote build of Debian router" 
    To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:25:59 -0500

    Ken Bloom <kabloom@ucdavis.edu> writes:

    > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:51:24 +0000, Jon Dowland wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:09:45 -0600, Hugo Vanwoerkom <hvw59601@care2.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> In general I would run WITH the patches, since powers greater than I
    >>> have decided they would be a good idea. Debian certainly is something
    >>> greater than I ;-)
    >>
    >> I'm going to look at what these patches are. Back in the Herb Xu era, I
    >> disliked the volume of backports and somewhat untested stuff that was put
    >> in the debian kernel.
    >
    > Debian Kernel 2.6.8 could burn CD's.
    > Linus' Kernel 2.6.8 couldn't.

    This seems like a timely discussion because if you check the second
    last issue of kerneltraffic, there is a synopsis of lkml discussion of
    the 2.6 development model:

    http://www.kerneltraffic.org/kernel-traffic/kt20041117_284.html#5

    Based on the kerneltraffic synopsis, it sounds like kernel developers
    have changed the meaning of 'stable' in the 2.6 series in an effort to
    get things into the kernel faster. The synopsis suggests that the
    distributions (e.g., Debian) are responsible for making the kernel
    really stable ('really' as in actually stable, not super-stable) and
    kernel developers focus on development. Furthermore, the
    distributions have all the beta-testers (read as users?) and can
    funnel bug information back to the kernel developers more efficiently.

    If this is true, then this may be a good reason to use Debian kernels,
    rather than kernel source from www.kernel.org. 

    -- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
  • Next message: Mike M: "Re: remote build of Debian router"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM
      ... There is clearly no practical way to write large audio applications ... realtime privileges to its applications. ... build a custom kernel. ... It is no surprise that kernel developers should consider our solution ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • LTT kernel inclusion (was Re: [PATCH] IA64 audit support)
      ... > feature is kernel developers, userspace developers and perhaps the most ... have to ask what use Uncle Tillie has for kernel auditing. ... with all the features that were added for power users and application ... developers while LTT was still waiting in line? ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: Compiling C++ kernel module + Makefile
      ... >>easier to make small syntactic changes to the kernel than to port the ... > that the culprits didn't think Scheme was a suitable language. ... > table that's worth the kernel developers changing the way they do things. ... the kernel headers in order to get it to compile in an extern "C" clause ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: [opensuse] ZFS on SuSE-anyone, Distributed File System...
      ... absorption of bsd into a proprietary clod -- no matter how big the clod ... Well obscurity was perhaps a tad strong. ... immediately tainted your kernel and its location was haphazard. ... So the kernel developers have come half way, ...
      (SuSE)
    • Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs
      ... of the kernel, and it's time for them to distribute code maintainership. ... on the non-sexy task of debugging problems. ... Or if you want a harder task, find a maintainer for the floppy driver... ... and some kernel developers seem to take the ...
      (Linux-Kernel)