SEO

#1 (**permalink**) 01-17-2008, 05:50 PM

I tried to Google help to eliminate the confusion and find someone who
has successfully moved to Kernel 2.6 without much fuss on RH9. The web
search was fruitless and led to dead ends. No one answered in
comp.os.linux.redhat, after a few days, so I'm trying here.

#2 (**permalink**) 01-17-2008, 05:51 PM

begin On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 12:14:34 -0800, Google Mike typed:

> I tried to Google help to eliminate the confusion and find someone who
> has successfully moved to Kernel 2.6 without much fuss on RH9. The web
> search was fruitless and led to dead ends. No one answered in
> comp.os.linux.redhat, after a few days, so I'm trying here.

Say what?!!!

Subject: 2.6 kernel, fairly stable RPM, desired for RH9 From:
googlemike@hotpop.com (Google Mike) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.redhat
Date: 1 Feb 2004 06:52:25 -0800

Subject: Re: 2.6 kernel, fairly stable RPM, desired for RH9 From:
Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> Reply-To:
clarkphotography@hotmail.com Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.redhat
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) Date: Sun,
01 Feb 2004 17:07:33 GMT

Subject: Re: 2.6 kernel, fairly stable RPM, desired for RH9 From:
Lenard <lenard@127.0.0.1> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.redhat
User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table) Date:
Sun, 01 Feb 2004 17:15:48 GMT

--
end
There's no attachment here, your newsreader is broken by Microsoft's choice!!
http://support.microsoft.com/default...;EN-US;q265230

#3 (**permalink**) 01-17-2008, 05:51 PM

Google Mike wrote:

> I tried to Google help to eliminate the confusion and find someone who
> has successfully moved to Kernel 2.6 without much fuss on RH9. The web
> search was fruitless and led to dead ends. No one answered in
> comp.os.linux.redhat, after a few days, so I'm trying here.

Fine. You have any reason why you absolutely *must* have 2.6?

--
Linux is not a desktop OS for people whose VCRs are still
flashing "12:00".*************************--*Paul*Tomblin

#4 (**permalink**) 01-17-2008, 05:51 PM

Lenard <lenard@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.02.01.21.04.46.789039@127.0.0.1>...
> begin On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 12:14:34 -0800, Google Mike typed:
>
> > I tried to Google help to eliminate the confusion and find someone who
> > has successfully moved to Kernel 2.6 without much fuss on RH9. The web
> > search was fruitless and led to dead ends. No one answered in
> > comp.os.linux.redhat, after a few days, so I'm trying here.
>
> Say what?!!!
>
> Subject: 2.6 kernel, fairly stable RPM, desired for RH9 From:
> googlemike@hotpop.com (Google Mike) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.redhat
> Date: 1 Feb 2004 06:52:25 -0800
>
> Subject: Re: 2.6 kernel, fairly stable RPM, desired for RH9 From:
> Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> Reply-To:
> clarkphotography@hotmail.com Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.redhat
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) Date: Sun,
> 01 Feb 2004 17:07:33 GMT
>
> Subject: Re: 2.6 kernel, fairly stable RPM, desired for RH9 From:
> Lenard <lenard@127.0.0.1> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.redhat
> User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table) Date:
> Sun, 01 Feb 2004 17:15:48 GMT

The strangest thing, Lenard -- this initially didn't appear on Google
Groups on the dates it says it posted. I've seen this issue rarely
before. After you mentioned this, I went back and voila these were
there. Thanks for pointing this out to me.

#5 (**permalink**) 01-17-2008, 05:51 PM

Peter Köhlmann <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
> Google Mike wrote:
>
> > I tried to Google help to eliminate the confusion and find someone who
> > has successfully moved to Kernel 2.6 without much fuss on RH9. The web
> > search was fruitless and led to dead ends. No one answered in
> > comp.os.linux.redhat, after a few days, so I'm trying here.
>
> Fine. You have any reason why you absolutely *must* have 2.6?

1) Speed. I've heard of major improvements in speed between 2.4 and
2.6.
2) Curiosity. Seems there's a lot of chatter about 2.6 and I wanted to
be up to speed on it, not left in the dark. I'm always finding I'm
left in the dark too much on cool Linux news and am like the last to
hear about it.

#6 (**permalink**) 01-17-2008, 05:52 PM

Google Mike wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> Google Mike wrote:
>>
>> > I tried to Google help to eliminate the confusion and find someone who
>> > has successfully moved to Kernel 2.6 without much fuss on RH9. The web
>> > search was fruitless and led to dead ends. No one answered in
>> > comp.os.linux.redhat, after a few days, so I'm trying here.
>>
>> Fine. You have any reason why you absolutely *must* have 2.6?
>
> 1) Speed. I've heard of major improvements in speed between 2.4 and
> 2.6.

Good. Then wait until it is in your distro. Or learn how to compile it

> 2) Curiosity. Seems there's a lot of chatter about 2.6 and I wanted to
> be up to speed on it, not left in the dark. I'm always finding I'm
> left in the dark too much on cool Linux news and am like the last to
> hear about it.

"Left in the dark"? Kidding, are you? Applies to wintendo, not to linux
--
Windows was created to keep stupid people away from UNIX."
**--*Tom*Christiansen

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

SEO

RH9 --Can't Breathe. Must Go To Kernel 2.6. You're my last hope!