| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <481771B8.9070105@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:06:32 +0200 From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> CC: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 usage statistics Willy Tarreau wrote: > Speaking for my case, at Exosec we still use 2.4 a lot. Main reason is that > we are used to apply a lot of patches. [...] I have already thought about > moving to 2.6.16, but I would have had to port my patches, [...] > Since I would have gained nothing in this operation, it > was easier to stick to 2.4. > > I'm waiting for other people's excuses now :-) A variation of the theme, which I as maintainer of some drivers in 2.6 heard by way of occasional questions on subsystem mailinglists or off-list: Kernel customizations for embedded systems in combination with a custom userland. Moving all this software over to 2.6 was not considered worth the effort. Another reason which I read here and there and don't know how real the issue is: 2.6's minimum possible footprint is said to be unable to compete with 2.4 for really resource restricted applications. Could it actually be that 2.4 outnumbers 2.6 in embedded installations? (I don't work with 2.4 myself and I don't know the domain of embedded systems.) -- Stefan Richter -=====-==--- -=-- ===-= http://arcgraph.de/sr/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists