| |||||||||||||
Distributions in 2005Distributions in 2005Posted Dec 15, 2005 21:43 UTC (Thu) by joey (subscriber, #328)Parent article: Distributions in 2005
> Debian [...] stayed with the tried and tested 2.4 kernel
No, not really. It's true that you have to type two more characters to install Debian with a 2.6 kernel than with 2.4, but calling that "sticking with 2.4" is absurd.
(Log in to post comments)
Distributions in 2005 Posted Dec 15, 2005 22:21 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Is it really ? GlibC can be compiled without a lot of cruft when you do not plan to use kernel 2.6.10 or below - and this is how most distributions are compiling it today. But Debian is still using non-2.6 optimized GlibC thus I think it can be called "sticking with 2.4".
Re: Debian "sticking with 2.4" Posted Dec 16, 2005 20:58 UTC (Fri) by branden (subscriber, #7029) [Link] Is it really ? GlibC can be compiled without a lot of cruft when you do not plan to use kernel 2.6.10 or below - and this is how most distributions are compiling it today. But Debian is still using non-2.6 optimized GlibC thus I think it can be called "sticking with 2.4". Yeah, I'm sure you're right. Most people I've spoken to upgraded to Linux 2.6 not because they wanted more hardware support, better memory management, or improved performance, but because they wanted to recompile their glibc...
Distributions in 2005 Posted Dec 18, 2005 21:00 UTC (Sun) by maceto (guest, #16498) [Link] glib -686 try that debian has that
|
|||||||||||||