-   Linux - General (
-   -   4 different kernels? (

ampex189 03-26-2004 01:33 AM

4 different kernels?
ok I was just on, and I saw something I didnt quite understand, that there were 4 different kernels: 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6. why is this?wouldnt the best move be to take the best parts of each and incorperate them in the newer version of the kernel then ?


J.W. 03-26-2004 01:58 AM

They are just different releases of the kernel. To use an analogy, suppose someone asked you "Why are there 4 different Windows: Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, and Windows XP?" I assume you would answer something along the lines of "They are just different releases of Windows. Windows 95 came first, and Windows 98 added upon it. Similarly, Windows 2000 added upon Windows 98, etc." Same basic deal with the kernels: 2.0 is the oldest, then 2.2 followed, then 2.4 followed that, and now 2.6 is the latest.

You can rest assured that the best components of each version are indeed retained if not improved upon in every subsequent release. -- J.W.

ampex189 03-26-2004 02:03 AM

but it looks as though the are all maintained at the same time... Im still a little lost, I can see why they keep 2.4, but why dont they just drop 2.0 and 2.2?

Tinkster 03-26-2004 02:11 AM

Let's assume that there were dependencies
between certain applications and certain
kernel releases... let's assume that some old
apps that aren't maintained anymore don't
work on more recent releases.

If this were MS you'd be forced to upgrade
your apps, or buy more recent equivalents
with the new kernel.

In Linux-land there's no such pressure, people
will maintain the old release.

I've seen similar behaviour in the commercial
field as well ... no, not from MS :} While I was
upgrading to OS/2 WARP 4, IBM was still
issuing fixpacks for OS/2 1.3... ;)


ampex189 03-26-2004 02:16 AM

ahhhh well that makes sense:) thanks


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:53 PM.