On Monday 26 November 2007, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > I'm still left wondering what your actual complaint is. It's clearly > not what the other poster has suggested you meant... you clearly dont > care about wmware or other binary modules..or if you do you have no > idea what the fundamental issues associated with such things are as it > relates to kernel development. In any event, you are being extremely > unclear as to why the fedora kernels are a problem for you > specifically. I've followed Les's argument for a long time; he (and others) want kernel stability but not userland stability. There are instances where I want that too, for specialized drivers (in my case data acquisition card drivers). The Fedora kernel (and the upstream kernel) regularly changes at the module ABI level (or even the source interface level, with wholesale header file changes that even break source-code-provided modules). This is highly inconvenient at best, insidious at worst. The CentOS and RHEL kernel, OTOH, has security patches backported but the ABI is fairly constant throughout the usable life. > If you can live with yesterday's kernel you can certainly live with > yesterday's applications. Why? If this were true, kde-redhat's RHEL repo wouldn't need to exist. KDE-Redhat for RHEL exists, therefore this isn't true. -- Lamar Owen Chief Information Officer Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu
