Question regarding Linux kernels 2.2 and 2.4

[David A. Sinck]

\_ SMTP quoth Thomas Mondoshawan Tate on 8/16/2001 16:58 as having spake thusly:
\_
\_ Anybody notice the abundance of people holding on and still patching the
\_ older 2.2 kernels? I've been rather curious about this for a while -- didn't
\_ say much about it because I thought it was a fluke or something. Isn't the
\_ existance of the 2.4 kernels saying that the experimental 2.3 kernels have
\_ reached a stable version?

1) Why install when it's working?
2) How keen are you to take down a production machine just for a silly
kernel upgrade?  What if it goes bad?  Horribly bad?
3) Sometimes kernel upgrades have lots of other dependencies that you
may be unwillling to fight.  (glibc, etc)
4) Look: a new client want something in the water in 4 days *counting*
the weekend!  Fire! Fire! Turkey Lurkey, the sky is falling!
5) Laziness.  Never overlookup apathy.  
6) Never overlookup apathy's friend: ignorance.

I've turned down significant hardware upgrades based on not wanting to
burn in the box to my comfort.  Of course, then when they offered me
the mem, mem's easy, right?  No problems there.  Except the HP Vectra
XA's Quantum Fireball...lived down to it's name.  How apt.  I wonder if
they gave the naming engineer a bonus for accuracy.  So I got the
hardware anyway, but it was a pain to recover from backup to a new
archetecture.

David