Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
On 11/18/2008 02:01 PM, Shawn Tinsley wrote: > Adding my $0.02, Red Hat 9 is also obsolete in terms of the kernel, ass= uming one hasn't updated their box. The 2.4 kernel has a number of issues= that were resolved in 2.6 in terms of memory management, specifically ha= ndling page caching, etc. So from an under the hood perspective moving to= a more up-to-date version would would have knock on benefits no matter t= he gui. > > > =20 The major distros have pretty well gotten it right according their=20 models. But, the one thing I would like to see is a continuous upgrade=20 (well Gentoo does this to some extent). What I mean is that you start=20 with Distro Version a. Along the way your system is upgraded=20 continuously such that when Version b. is officially released, you=20 already have it. rom a pure support point of view it would be a=20 nightmare. There are certainly holes in my thought here. Take something=20 like KDE. Today, version a. might have KDE 3.x, and version b. might=20 have KDE 4. Could the KDE changeover be made seamless. I could argue=20 both for and against this approach, but the bottom line is to allow the=20 end user to maintain a relatively current system without having to do=20 something special. In the past, my experience with SuSE was that you had = to perform an install with the new version (from media or online), with=20 Ubuntu, it was a click on a button on a working system. I don't know how = Fedora is handling this.=20 --=20 Jerry Feldman <gaf-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org> Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |