Philipp Thomas said the following on 06/16/2012 07:11 AM:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 21:44:31 +0200, Per Jessen <per@computer.org> wrote:
You've lost me - if you're running kernel version 2.6.39, that is what uname will show you. If you're something else, uname will show you that.
I guess what he meant were Fedoras renamed kernels.
Yes, but I think it was more than just Fedora were renamed: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTUwMg I *am* running Fedora on another machine, but I do recall hearing that some distributions stuck with the 2.6 sequence even though it was the "new" renamed code base. 2.6.4x or something. Somewhere here I have a server running Mandriva that says 2.6.39.4-5.1-generic #1 SMP Wed Jan 4 13:50:55 UTC 2012 i686 Note the date: Long past the spring 2011 'renaming'. It runs systemd - oh and a stable systemd, none of the problems I saw reported for openSuse 12.1 - and when I poke around at the innards of the drivers I'm really suspicious that this has some of the stuff I see when I look though the release notes for 3.0.0 and 3.1. But I'm not sure I could prove it in court; someone would have to pour over the source listings side by side.... But lets not forget that the strings returned by 'uname' can be whatever you want. When you rebuild the kernel and determine what goes in there you can set those strings to whatever your sweet heart desires; there's no magic that automatically updates it in sequence - that why other distributions can modify it with their own tags. No, what I'm asking is this. Forget what uname says. If I don't have source how can I find out if the kernel I'm running on a particular machine, the drivers, schedulers memory allocators etc are from what real level of revision? With some degree of granularity. There's a lot out there that implies the move to the 3.x series had to do with marketing. Maybe so or not. But I'm suspicious that once marketing gets involved a degree of truthfulness becomes fuzzy. For example, I've held off upgrading my various Suse machines from 11.4 to 12.1 because of the problems reported with systemd, but the other machines here running systemd under fedora and mandriva don't have any of the problems that were reported with the opensuse 12.1 implementation. That bothers me; what code was really being run? Was it something trivial like how openSuse uses /etc/sysconfig parameters - which I've always considered superior to the other distributions? Or what? -- "Security is a chain within the infrastructure and is as secure as its weakest link. It is not a product nor a series of technologies but a process of solutions measured against the business needs of the organization." -- Walter S. Kobus, Jr., CISM CISSP IAM -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org