<div>It's great that all y'all recognize a reliable standard source of good kernels, but I'm missing something. My understanding of the license is that I can download Red Hat, hack and slash to my heart's content (
e.g. integrating symbolic galois extension fields into tcsh), and sell it as "Pete's Linux Version 1.00" and the kernel would just be whatever I compiled to boot ab initio.</div>
<div>No?<br> </div>
<div>Peter </div>
<div> </div>
<div>P.S. if I have compiled with more features than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants. In my lifetime, Linus stands on the shoulders of Ken.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 4/27/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Mark Hahn</b> <<a href="mailto:hahn@mcmaster.ca">hahn@mcmaster.ca</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">> There is a unique numbering system for linux kernels? What is it? I've<br>> always thought of kernels as being part of distros.
<br><br>sacrilege!<br><br>distros are just eyecandy, and the kernel they ship is normally<br>patched out of all recognition. sometimes some suffixes are added<br>to hint of this, but they understate the case: 2.6.9-42.0.10.ELsmp
<br>is only vaguely related to the true 2.6.9 from <a href="http://kernel.org">kernel.org</a>. I don't<br>know whether distros have caught onto the fact that <a href="http://kernel.org">kernel.org</a><br>has a nice system for choosing sequences of stable branches within
<br>the sequence of development versions (<a href="http://2.6.20.9">2.6.20.9</a> for instance - there<br>is no stable version of 2.6.21 yet.) here's the last few kernels:<br><br>-rw-rw-r-- 1 536 536 40956221 Apr 22 23:06
linux-2.6.16.49.tar.bz2<br>-rw-rw-r-- 1 536 536 43377437 Apr 25 21:21 linux-2.6.20.8.tar.bz2<br>-rw-rw-r-- 1 536 536 43997476 Apr 26 03:23 linux-2.6.21.tar.bz2<br>-rw-rw-r-- 1 536 536 43373745 Apr 26 07:15
linux-2.6.20.9.tar.bz2<br><br>note two active stable branches...<br><br>in any case, kernels are a thing unto themselves, certainly not beholden<br>or subsurvient to distros. I normally use <a href="http://kernel.org">kernel.org
</a> kernels on machines<br>where I care (servers, clusters), but lazily leave the distro kernel on my<br>desktops.<br></blockquote></div><br>