Willy Tarreau wrote:
quoted text
> 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/
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/