[Nottingham] Kernels 2.4 vs 2.6

[Martin]

Cam wrote:
> Martin
>>
>> So why would "2.4" still be used rather than "2.6" other than for
>> historical systems?
> 
> It could be used for embedded systems, for example if the architecture
> isn't mainstream so isn't well supported in 2.6, or if the product
> includes devices with third-party device drivers that are only provided
> for 2.4.x kernels
> 
> Also if you have many hours of testing and development behind a product
> with 2.4.x built in, you need a very compelling reason to move to 2.6
> with all the associated development work, re-testing, and support of
> deployed devices that will still be running 2.4.x

Thanks, that confirms the "historical" bit.

I was just wondering if there was some present day technical or
performance reason such as scheduler or architecture or whatever that
might favour the old 2.4 kernel still.

Cheers,
Martin

-- 
----------------
Martin Lomas
martin at ml1.co.uk
----------------