woody.gilk at gmail.com
Sun Oct 10 23:24:54 UTC 2004
you know... this whole debate about linux and linux-beta does need
some discussion. the state of things right now is that Lunar _cannot_
upgrade to Gnome 2.8 because the 2.6.x kernels are still "beta". i'm
not trying to start a flame war (i still use 2.4 because it works
better for me), but i think there are a lot of people who want 2.6.x
considered the "main" kernel.
here's what i think would work: make 2.6.x the linux module, and make
2.4.x the linux-stable module. even just this simple rename will allow
Lunar to get Gnome to 2.8, satisfy a lot of complaints, and still let
2.4 be in the repository for people who think that 2.6 isn't ready for
as i see it, Lunar is a pretty bleeding edge distro compared to most.
(i won't even talk about compared to Debian here.) the only thing
right now that Lunar is not up to date on is Gnome 2.8, and kernel
2.6... Gnome 2.8 requires kernel 2.6, so effectively Gnome updates are
put on hold until kernel 2.6 becomes "stable". since Lunar is (just
barely) GTK-centric (yes, yes i know it's completely up to the user,
but some XFCE devs are also Lunar devs, therefore a little more GTK
centric), Lunar should be on the bleeding edge of GTK apps as well.
so, what's the hold up? some things don't work for people in 2.4, some
things don't work for people in 2.6... so what?
do we really want to be obsoleted just because we won't consider 2.6.x stable?
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 20:02:49 +0200, Hendrik Visage
<hvisage at envisage.co.za> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 07:51:44PM +0200, Auke Kok wrote:
> > so you want the -beta kernel *downgraded* ? Why don't you downgrade it
> > yourself and put it on hold?
> I'm more hoping for a linux-26
> > Please... remember we still call it *beta* because of this type of
> > problem (did someone completely screw up ATA-cd-writing recently?) If
> > you have a problem with the beta kernel switch back to a 2.4 kernel or
> > roll your own and tell your experiences, but please don't barge in here
> > requesting that we jump up for you... You *could* have told us that the
> > 2.6.9rc3 doesn't work for you !
> I did ;^)
> Actually the 2.4.25[27 is not working for me either, as it appears that
> SBP2 (firewire SCSI disk module) appears to be broken (It broke somewhere
> after .18/.19) and it does work in 220.127.116.11
> Lunar mailing list
> Lunar at lunar-linux.org
wgilk design and blog [ http://www.wgilk.com ]
follower of the fat penguin [ http://www.linux.org ]
More information about the Lunar