From: valen at domain tuatha.org
Date: Tue 31 Aug 1999 - 10:34:30 IST
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 10:12:35AM +0100, kevin lyda mentioned:
> 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.
Woohoo. Three years waiting for a new kernel, and they release one that
dies if you run xanim on a big file, without using the -f option. But
that's OK, because 2.4 will fix that. Barf. I'd be a lot more cranky, only
I know I couldn't do it myself.
> > 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).
I had more meant a ecgs type of split. So, you would have standard Linux
and a "more featured, flaky Linux". And then there are those that would say
"But Linux is a more featured, flaky freebsd"...
-- Microsoft. The best reason in the world to drink beer.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:04:31 GMT