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