Re: [SLE] New v2.6 kernal info?
I read that, but I guess the better question is what is the typical time
between the announced release of say v2.6, and then the practical release of
a new SuSE? As in, say SuSE v9 is the first to have the new kernal, does it
take months between the time a new kernal releases and SuSE might implement
it?
Thanks, Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Freemyer"
No info on timing, but the 2.6 kernel description at
http://www.kniggit.net/wwol26.html
Is very informative.
Definately the best detailed writeup on 2.6 that I have seen.
Greg -- Greg Freemyer
On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 09:20, will wrote:
On Tuesday, August 5, 2003, at 08:07 AM, Jeff Bankston wrote:
Has anyone heard when the new kernal code is supposed to be released?
'sposed to have some cool stuff in it, from what I hear!
-Jeff
Might lead you in the right direction
will
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On Wednesday 06 August 2003 11:36 am, Jeff Bankston wrote:
I read that, but I guess the better question is what is the typical time between the announced release of say v2.6, and then the practical release of a new SuSE? As in, say SuSE v9 is the first to have the new kernal, does it take months between the time a new kernal releases and SuSE might implement it?
Although SuSE is very cutting edge when it comes to GCC compilers, they don't appear to be as cutting edge when it comes to minor revision kernels. With the many major changes in the 2.6 kernel I would hope that SuSE takes their time with it and deliver a sturdy and stable product. Word on the street is that SuSE 9.0 will be working with the 2.4.21 kernel. But that and $7.95 will still only get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. -- May I please be excused? My Brain is full. ---------------------------------------------------------------- SuSE 8.2 - KDE 3.1.3 Darl McBride is a fscking diskhead
columbo
Word on the street is that SuSE 9.0 will be working with the 2.4.21 kernel.
Yepp, it will be a 2.4.2X kernel, but 9.0 will be prepared to also run a 2.6 kernel (mostly modutils that need to be tuned to work with both 2.4 and 2.6 kernels). We'll probably also provide a 2.6 kernel, but that has to explicitly be installed. 2.6 is just too untested to use it as default. Philipp -- Philipp Thomas work: pthomas@suse.de private: philipp.thomas@t-link.de
Yepp, it will be a 2.4.2X kernel, but 9.0 will be prepared to also run a 2.6 kernel (mostly modutils that need to be tuned to work with both 2.4 and 2.6 kernels).
So, it's going to be 9.0 ,not 8.3 then? -- James Ogley, Webmaster, Rubber Turnip james@rubberturnip.org.uk http://www.rubberturnip.org.uk Jabber: riggwelter@myjabber.net Using Free Software since 1994, running GNU/Linux (SuSE 8.2). GNOME updates for SuSE: http://www.usr-local-bin.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 07 August 2003 01:29 am, James Ogley wrote:
Yepp, it will be a 2.4.2X kernel, but 9.0 will be prepared to also run a 2.6 kernel (mostly modutils that need to be tuned to work with both 2.4 and 2.6 kernels).
So, it's going to be 9.0 ,not 8.3 then? -- James Ogley, Webmaster, Rubber Turnip james@rubberturnip.org.uk http://www.rubberturnip.org.uk Jabber: riggwelter@myjabber.net Using Free Software since 1994, running GNU/Linux (SuSE 8.2). GNOME updates for SuSE: http://www.usr-local-bin.org
Correct ! :) Curtis. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/MfM+iqnGhdjCOJsRAiE3AJ95CF7WkSUkrnhK8VlS3KO5FAA7WwCfcvTe coODRGrnk2mDxAWgnphDqhU= =AeFx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
* Curtis Rey (crrey@charter.net) [030806 23:38]:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 07 August 2003 01:29 am, James Ogley wrote:
Yepp, it will be a 2.4.2X kernel, but 9.0 will be prepared to also run a 2.6 kernel (mostly modutils that need to be tuned to work with both 2.4 and 2.6 kernels).
So, it's going to be 9.0 ,not 8.3 then? -- James Ogley, Webmaster, Rubber Turnip james@rubberturnip.org.uk http://www.rubberturnip.org.uk Jabber: riggwelter@myjabber.net Using Free Software since 1994, running GNU/Linux (SuSE 8.2). GNOME updates for SuSE: http://www.usr-local-bin.org
Correct !
Well, don't they have to all match close enough to each other? :) Slackware 9.0 Mandrake 9.1 Redhat 9.0 Etc..etc...so SuSE 9.0 would make sense. :) Marketing my dear boy..marketing. -- Ben Rosenberg ---===---===---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org ----- If two men agree on everything, you can be sure that only one of them is doing the thinking.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 07 August 2003 01:42 am, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
* Curtis Rey (crrey@charter.net) [030806 23:38]:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 07 August 2003 01:29 am, James Ogley wrote:
Yepp, it will be a 2.4.2X kernel, but 9.0 will be prepared to also run a 2.6 kernel (mostly modutils that need to be tuned to work with both 2.4 and 2.6 kernels).
So, it's going to be 9.0 ,not 8.3 then? -- James Ogley, Webmaster, Rubber Turnip james@rubberturnip.org.uk http://www.rubberturnip.org.uk Jabber: riggwelter@myjabber.net Using Free Software since 1994, running GNU/Linux (SuSE 8.2). GNOME updates for SuSE: http://www.usr-local-bin.org
Correct !
Well, don't they have to all match close enough to each other? :)
Slackware 9.0 Mandrake 9.1 Redhat 9.0
Etc..etc...so SuSE 9.0 would make sense. :)
Marketing my dear boy..marketing.
Of course your right. I was just repeating what Holgi said. Cheers, Curtis. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/MfkviqnGhdjCOJsRAp58AJ4pFuYApCJD1i5319qeoYY5NIkxaQCfe2y2 tiAPLSvfJp9vwHEb0T5W+vI= =vleJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thursday 07 August 2003 02:00, Curtis Rey wrote:
Slackware 9.0 Mandrake 9.1 Redhat 9.0
Etc..etc...so SuSE 9.0 would make sense. :)
Marketing my dear boy..marketing.
Of course your right. I was just repeating what Holgi said.
Cheers, Curtis.
Marketing is so stupid. Soon they'll be using major version numbers all the time. "I see SuSE 142 in your future..." At what point can we start laughing about it? Or rolling your eyes, whatever you prefer. -- ---------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Wilson Cedar Creek Software http://www.cedarcreeksoftware.com
JW wrote:
On Thursday 07 August 2003 02:00, Curtis Rey wrote:
Slackware 9.0 Mandrake 9.1 Redhat 9.0
Etc..etc...so SuSE 9.0 would make sense. :)
Marketing my dear boy..marketing.
Of course your right. I was just repeating what Holgi said.
Cheers, Curtis.
Marketing is so stupid. Soon they'll be using major version numbers all the time.
"I see SuSE 142 in your future..."
At what point can we start laughing about it? Or rolling your eyes, whatever you prefer.
Hey... look where marketing has put Microsoft. Maybe the switch to Year/Quarter notation would work for Linux also... Anyone for SuSE Linux 2003.4?
* Herman Knief (herman@knief.net) [030807 21:59]:
Hey... look where marketing has put Microsoft. Maybe the switch to Year/Quarter notation would work for Linux also...
Anyone for SuSE Linux 2003.4?
Solaris does this. They are about to release an updated solaris 9 in which Gnome2 is the default desktop by install. They do updates quarterly such as 02/12. So why not have SuSE 9.0 be the release for the year and just have updates via single CD. It could work..and next year we'll see SuSE Linux OSX..err...never mind. ;) -- Ben Rosenberg ---===---===---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org ----- If two men agree on everything, you can be sure that only one of them is doing the thinking.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 and next year
we'll see SuSE Linux OSX..err...never mind. ;)
-- Ben Rosenberg
Silly silly man :) LOL ! Curits. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/MzCZiqnGhdjCOJsRAhWYAJ0TC7m0I0csW5zjnTwo2zxJVLfHkQCfQl6p RRcE+ECyApxkDHJoCp9AxEQ= =VU8c -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
At 10:05 PM 7/08/03 -0700, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
* Herman Knief (herman@knief.net) [030807 21:59]:
Hey... look where marketing has put Microsoft. Maybe the switch to Year/Quarter notation would work for Linux also...
Anyone for SuSE Linux 2003.4?
Solaris does this. They are about to release an updated solaris 9 in which Gnome2 is the default desktop by install. They do updates quarterly such as 02/12. So why not have SuSE 9.0 be the release for the year and just have updates via single CD. It could work..and next year we'll see SuSE Linux OSX..err...never mind. ;)
Actually as an overseas customer since v5.x I'd love to see it like this! I'd be quite happy to pay for a "major" package to be released once a year and have a bi-monthly "update" CD/DVD package automatically shipped by SuSE to me containing, all updates up to within 2 weeks from 'update release date' and new programs and !things for the rest of the year. Yes I suspect the cost differential would add at least 50% and i'd actually be happy with this knowing the update will automatically come as well as at least part of it's cost going back into a great company (their shipping group may not be pleased with the idea though :-))). At least then i'd be able to keep things I use up to date without having to spend time downloading with a slow modem for a couple of hours or so every few days (neither cable nor ADSL is available in my local area in australia (1 general store, 1pub and 28 families) and satelite is too b...y expensive). The only downloads needed would then be the ?urgent ones for system protection, the rest could wait. come in spinner scsijon
Well, don't they have to all match close enough to each other? :) Slackware 9.0 Mandrake 9.1 Redhat 9.0 Etc..etc...so SuSE 9.0 would make sense. :) Marketing my dear boy..marketing.
Oh yeah, that's why we jumped to 7.0 and 8.0 as well isn't it? :) Bloody marketing... -- James Ogley, Webmaster, Rubber Turnip james@rubberturnip.org.uk http://www.rubberturnip.org.uk Jabber: riggwelter@myjabber.net Using Free Software since 1994, running GNU/Linux (SuSE 8.2) GNOME updates for SuSE: http://www.usr-local-bin.org
As Ben said, marketing. For some reason companies want a version 9 instead of a version 8. On Thursday 07 August 2003 02:29, James Ogley wrote:
Yepp, it will be a 2.4.2X kernel, but 9.0 will be prepared to also run a 2.6 kernel (mostly modutils that need to be tuned to work with both 2.4 and 2.6 kernels).
So, it's going to be 9.0 ,not 8.3 then? -- James Ogley, Webmaster, Rubber Turnip james@rubberturnip.org.uk http://www.rubberturnip.org.uk Jabber: riggwelter@myjabber.net Using Free Software since 1994, running GNU/Linux (SuSE 8.2). GNOME updates for SuSE: http://www.usr-local-bin.org
-- Visit my website, http://www.geocities.com/kane121975/ for my Linux Tips and my Linux FAQ, if you want to know what I am up to visit my weblog
participants (10)
-
Ben Rosenberg -
columbo -
Curtis Rey -
Herman Knief -
James Ogley -
Jeff Bankston -
JW -
Philipp Thomas -
Roberto Dohnert -
scsijon