From: kevin lyda (kevin at domain suberic.net)
Date: Tue 31 Aug 1999 - 10:09:38 IST
valen at domain tuatha.org spoke thusly:
> Reasoning being that having no poor patches for OOM was more likely to
>speed up development of a good one, than a series of stopgap measures.
yes, but it seems that 2.3.x is fixing that. also i think alan's recent
2.2.x release notes have some oom fixes.
> Same reasons devfs and GGI never made it in...I thought it strange that no
>one would maintain a kernel with all the wierd shit in it, that Linus said
>"No!" to ...
they do. look at the "unofficial patches" section of
http://www.kernelnotes.org/ . there's even a kernel debugger patch
(courtesy of sgi).
www.linuxmama.com used to do them as well but it seems woefully out of
date.
kevin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:04:31 GMT