Technology and Trends
 USENET Archives
  
From: Mark Shadley < shad...@catcher.com>
Subject: Re: Upgrading GCC Problems
Date: 1996/07/07
Message-ID: < Pine.LNX.3.93.960707184905.4441B-100000@shadow.catcher.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 167108993
sender: owner-linux-...@vger.rutgers.edu
references: <199607072133.HAA14058@sctnugen.ppp.gu.edu.au>
content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
x-hdr-sender: shad...@catcher.com
organization: very little...
mime-version: 1.0
x-env-sender: owner-linux-gcc-outgo...@vger.rutgers.edu
newsgroups: linux.dev.gcc


[snip]

> Long story, but it looks like there will be a 1.2.14 kernel soon that
> will have these sort of bug-fix and enhancement patches already
> applied to it (including the ELF patch).
> 
> Cheers
> Tony

Why do we need a 1.2.14 kernel?  2.0.0 is a great kernel.

Mark

From: Alan Cox <a...@cymru.net>
Subject: Re: Upgrading GCC Problems
Date: 1996/07/08
Message-ID: <199607080829.JAA01015@snowcrash.cymru.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 167161076
sender: owner-linux-...@vger.rutgers.edu
references: <Pine.LNX.3.93.960707184905.4441B-100000@shadow.catcher.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
x-hdr-sender: a...@cymru.net
mime-version: 1.0
x-env-sender: owner-linux-gcc-outgo...@vger.rutgers.edu
newsgroups: linux.dev.gcc


> Why do we need a 1.2.14 kernel?  2.0.0 is a great kernel.

Cos 2.0.0 has a pile of bugs, 2.0.4 has less sure. 1.2.14 is still way more
stable that 2.0.x, as its the result of a years fine tuning.

See http://www.uk.linux.org/NetNews.html for the network bug list in 2.0.0 if 
you are not convinced

Alan

From: Carlos Carvalho <car...@riglos.fisica.ufpr.br>
Subject: 2.0.4 x 1.2.14
Date: 1996/07/08
Message-ID: <m0udLBU-00003WC@riglos.fisica.ufpr.br>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 167311342
sender: owner-linux-...@vger.rutgers.edu
x-hdr-sender: car...@riglos.fisica.ufpr.br
references: <Pine.LNX.3.93.960707184905.4441B-100000@shadow.catcher.com>
x-env-sender: owner-linux-gcc-outgo...@vger.rutgers.edu
newsgroups: linux.dev.gcc


Alan Cox (a...@cymru.net) wrote on 8 July 1996 09:29:
 >> Why do we need a 1.2.14 kernel?  2.0.0 is a great kernel.
 >
 >Cos 2.0.0 has a pile of bugs, 2.0.4 has less sure. 1.2.14 is still way more
 >stable that 2.0.x, as its the result of a years fine tuning.
 >
 >See http://www.uk.linux.org/NetNews.html for the network bug list in
 >2.0.0 if you are not convinced

All I see there is "fixed in 2.0.x, 1 <= x <= 4". It does give the
impression that 2.0.4 is superb, so it's an argument against "1.2.14",
not in favour of it!

Carlos

From: Alan Cox <a...@cymru.net>
Subject: Re: 2.0.4 x 1.2.14
Date: 1996/07/09
Message-ID: <199607090831.JAA09979@snowcrash.cymru.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 167374102
sender: owner-linux-...@vger.rutgers.edu
references: <m0udLBU-00003WC@riglos.fisica.ufpr.br>
content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
x-hdr-sender: a...@cymru.net
mime-version: 1.0
x-env-sender: owner-linux-gcc-outgo...@vger.rutgers.edu
newsgroups: linux.dev.gcc


> All I see there is "fixed in 2.0.x, 1 <= x <= 4". It does give the
> impression that 2.0.4 is superb, so it's an argument against "1.2.14",
> not in favour of it!

2.0.4 just hasnt been out long enough to find them all. We have 2 still
left in 2.0.4 so far, both very non serious.

Alan