| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Stable kernel 2.0.40 releasedStable kernel 2.0.40 releasedPosted Feb 8, 2004 20:44 UTC (Sun) by Soruk (guest, #2722)Parent article: Stable kernel 2.0.40 released When is 1.2.14 coming out? ;-)
(Log in to post comments)
Stable kernel 2.0.40 released Posted Feb 8, 2004 22:15 UTC (Sun) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] When I last checked, there is no active maintainer for the 1.2.xx or 1.0.xx code bases. Alan Cox holds the keys for the 1.2.xx I think.. so if you want to take that over.. I would probably get a patch set together, and then let him look it over.
Stable kernel 2.0.40 released Posted Feb 8, 2004 22:34 UTC (Sun) by Soruk (guest, #2722) [Link] Hee.. I wasn't expecting to be taken seriously with that one ;-) I haven't used 1.2.13 since late 1996! Still, I guess 1.2.13 could be useful for low-mem systems...
Stable kernel 2.0.40 released Posted Feb 9, 2004 4:58 UTC (Mon) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] Yikes. It's hard to imagine being able to do anything after the kernel was loaded in a system that was so low-mem that it helped to run 1.2.x rather than 2.0.x.-Rob
Doing a lot with a little Posted Feb 9, 2004 6:05 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] I used to serve a whole office (back in 1995 or so) from a 386SX/16 box with 8M of RAM, running Netatalk (Mac filesharing), mail (SMTP/POP3 to/from 10 clients, UUCP to/from to smarthost over a 9600 bps dialup every three hours) and small intranet web server (Apache). That blessed thing was a faster Mac fileserver than my Power Mac 8500/120. And it ran on kernel 1.2.13 until the last three months when I upgraded it to 1.3.57. :-) It did, however, require almost 2.5 hours to recompile the kernel. :-(Just to say you can do a lot with Linux (Slackware 3.0 in this case) and a just a dab of memory... :-)
Doing a lot with a little Posted Feb 9, 2004 6:13 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] Oh, and one more thing... that box would still be running today and plugging along just fine if somebody hadn't gone and knocked over a water bottle into its innards. (No, it wasn't me.) :-)I understand the desire to have the latest stuff, and that's all well and good, but the needs of this particular office were such that you could have left that thing running to this day and they would have been fine. So I can see why someone would still want to use the 2.0.40 kernel, especially if there were incompatible changes made in forward versions or support for old devices (necessary for certain hardware) was dropped.
|
|
||||||||||||