On Wednesday 07 January 2004 11:02 pm, Steve wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 January 2004 10:00 pm, you wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 January 2004 12:20 am, Craig Zeigler wrote:
> > > you might try a 2.6 kernel
> >
> > I may eventually try a 2.6, but I'm usually one who likes to give things
> > a few months for the dust to settle before I jump in. I haven't really
> > paid much attention to what's new in 2.6 so I don't know if there's
> > anything new that I'd really want yet. I'd be happy to have a 2.4 kernel
> > that is recognizes my Athlon, all 1024MB of RAM in my machine and has
> > been trimmed down to be relatively free of extraneous bloat. I'd happily
> > run that kernel 'till I needed a feature in a newer kernel or a
> > vulnerability is discovered in the version I'm using.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nate
>
> Ahh, come on! We NEED YOU to be our test dummy!
> Please, Pretty Please, with bytes on top!
>
Well, if you're going to butter me up like that.... : )
> Actually I'm quite interested in testing it on my home machine. It's
> supposed to already be more stable than 2.4 and VERY responsive. The
> desktop user experience is speeded up a lot!
Hmm... Actually 2.6 does sound interesting, maybe I'll DL those sources too
and conduct a highly respected, extremely scientific seat of my pants 2.4 /
2.6 comparison on my Athlon machine. Hard to not be tempted by the promise of
a better performing computer!
Thanks,
Nate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:16:54 EDT