Jeremy Katz wrote:
> I don't think a kernel or libc should be
"interesting" and the only
> reason to change them should be to get one that works with new hardware.
> Server apps also tend to be mostly feature-complete even in old
> versions. However desktop apps are evolving rapidly and there really is
> a missing spot in fedora/rhel style distributions since nothing provides
> both kernel/core library stability and current application versions.
Unfortunately as the desktop grows increasingly full-featured, the
amount of the stack which needs to change for supporting newer desktop
apps is increasing.
Are you saying these desktops can't ever run on *bsd/solaris, etc.
kernels and libc's because they need features unique to this month's linux?
Once upon a time (... in a galaxy far, far away) I used to build
updated
GNOME versions for older Red Hat Linux releases. It wasn't easy, but it
was pretty constrained to a small set of packages. These days, I'd end
up needing new hal which brings in ConsoleKit which ...[1]
Jeremy
[1] Note: this is an example. I am not saying this is bad. Hi
davidz! :)
I'd say anything at the application level that isn't portable across
platforms is bad, let alone across kernel versions.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com