High memory kernel support

[Paul Lussier]

Ken D'Ambrosio <kend at xanoptix.com> writes:

> but I do think that, kind of in opposition to your stance, unless
> there's a reason to stick with 2.4 (such as, "It just works," which
> is a fine reason), 2.6 is the way to go.

Well, our product is based currently based on the 2.4 series, so
there's significant resistance to moving towards 2.6 because of that.
Also, we try to run the same kernel not only on the product, but also
everywhere else; desktops, servers, etc.  That way we have the widest
possible use-case of the kernel.  If there's a bug, we're using the
kernel in so many different ways, that hopefully we'll find it before
it turns up at a customer site.

I didn't mean to imply *I'm* hesitant to upgrade, just that I haven't
found an overly compelling need to do so.  Keeping in mind that to
propose shifting would also require me to convince all the various
"powers that be" we shouldshift.  That's sometimes a lot more effort
than it's worth ;)
-- 

Seeya,
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/private/gnhlug-discuss/attachments/20050317/86ea229e/attachment.bin