From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763652AbYD2TG6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:06:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752007AbYD2TGt (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:06:49 -0400 Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]:46146 "EHLO einhorn.in-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751776AbYD2TGs (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:06:48 -0400 X-Envelope-From: stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de Message-ID: <481771B8.9070105@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:06:32 +0200 From: Stefan Richter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.13) Gecko/20080419 SeaMonkey/1.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Willy Tarreau CC: Adrian Bunk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 usage statistics References: <20080428202433.GA13417@hera.kernel.org> <20080428205631.GA2813@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080428211812.GA19093@1wt.eu> In-Reply-To: <20080428211812.GA19093@1wt.eu> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Willy Tarreau wrote: > 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/