On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, [gb2312] Song Sam wrote:

Sorry,I got you wrong.I was a little too sensitive to
see 2.4 with "dead".Just gave my opinion on 2.4 kernel
on embedded development.

Deployment if you're already almost ready to ship is sane enough, I
suppose -- but to actually put more effort into 2.4 wouldn't make much
sense.

It was really a puzzle for me why 2.4 is NOT a viable,
maintainable platform but it is used more than 2.6.x
in many embedded development.Also why to see 2.4 dying
without leaving the official maintaining work to some
volunteers? Any special reason?

Because nobody's really that interested in it. For what it's worth, I've
abandoned all pretence of continuing to support 2.4 in the MTD/JFFS2 CVS
tree. I won't object too hard if someone else wants to fix it up, _if_
that doesn't uglify the 2.6 code.

If 2.4 works already for you, by all means use it -- but if you're doing
any new development, or you _really_ want people to care when you find
bugs, it really ought to be 2.6.

quoted

I would not consider deploying anything on 2.6
today. IMHO it's not mature
enough to be used in production environment.

I do agree with the view.I guess it is most embedded
developers's opinion.

Out of interest, how many platforms are you using 2.6 on and how does
your experience with these platforms support your stated view?

--
dwmw2

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/