4 different kernels?
 

ok I was just on www.kernel.org, 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 ?


Ampex189

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.

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?

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... ;)



Cheers,
Tink

ahhhh well that makes sense:) thanks


ampex189