Re: [Documentation] Kernel choice in IPFire 3.x

[Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5556 bytes --]

Well, at first we do not want users to use this kernel if they do not
need to. Hopefully, they all are stable, but this kernel has *serious*
security issues and we do not approve that.

Michael

On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 16:25 +0100, hilmar sandfuehr wrote:
> hope i got the point right,
> but why not call it in a positive way ?
> 
> 
> like "stable"  "approved" or "established" - or "RELIABLE" ?
> (a german translation for it would be "bewährt")
> 
> 
> hilmar
> 
> 
> 2012/1/21 Michael Tremer <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org>
>         I think I got it:
>         
>         What do you think about "-legacy"? A good German translation
>         would be
>         "Altlast" and that's exactly what it is without sounding too
>         bad.
>         
>         If we would call it "-outdated" or "-unsecure", nobody would
>         want to
>         install it and I think a legacy kernel is not too bad.
>         
>          -Michael
>         
>         On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 17:38 +0100, Michael Tremer wrote:
>         > Hey,
>         >
>         > I do not think that -rrf is quite intuitive.
>         >
>         >  -Michael
>         >
>         > P.S. Please subscribe to the list if you reply to mails. I
>         won't approve
>         > mails any longer.
>         >
>         > On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 17:22 +0100, Ben Schweikert wrote:
>         > > What about Kernel-rrf? Reduced Range of functions?
>         > > Ben
>         > >
>         > >
>         > >
>         > > Am 20.01.2012 um 17:13 schrieb Michael Tremer
>         <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org>:
>         > >
>         > > > Hey,
>         > > >
>         > > > I think that is quite long, but actually when I was
>         talking to Arne, he
>         > > > came up with the following idea:
>         > > >
>         > > > Why name the PAE-kernel kernel-PAE when PAE is only one
>         of the features
>         > > > it comes with and is the default one. It would be much
>         better to call if
>         > > > the default kernel. Nothing else.
>         > > >
>         > > > That would imply that we need to rename the other
>         version, which is a
>         > > > bit hard to do, because I have not found a simply and
>         cheesy name that
>         > > > is to the point. Any suggestions?
>         > > >
>         > > > -Michael
>         > > >
>         > > > On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 14:12 +0100, Daniel Weismüller
>         wrote:
>         > > >> Hi
>         > > >>
>         > > >> Why you just name it "without-PAE"
>         > > >>
>         > > >> Daniel
>         > > >>
>         > > >> Am 19.01.2012 12:46, schrieb Michael Tremer:
>         > > >>> Hey Daniel,
>         > > >>>
>         > > >>> thank you for your reply.
>         > > >>>
>         > > >>> Do you have any suggestion for the name of the
>         "default" kernel?
>         > > >>>
>         > > >>> I think it is not that bad because that kernel runs by
>         "default" on any
>         > > >>> i686 box. But there may be better names around.
>         > > >>>
>         > > >>> Michael
>         > > >>>
>         > > >>> P.S. Make sure you reply to Arne and Ben as well,
>         because they have not
>         > > >>> subscribed to this list.
>         > > >>>
>         > > >>> On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 08:32 +0100, Daniel Weismüller
>         wrote:
>         > > >>>> Hi!
>         > > >>>> Good work at all. I think it is easy to understand
>         why it is necessary
>         > > >>>> to use different kernels.
>         > > >>>>
>         > > >>>> Only one point. In my opinion it is a bad choice to
>         name the "i686
>         > > >>>> non-pae kernel" "default kernel" because it isn't our
>         default kernel for
>         > > >>>> the i686 architecture.
>         > > >>>>
>         > > >>>> Daniel
>         > > >>>>
>         > > >>>> Am 18.01.2012 23:12, schrieb Michael Tremer:
>         > > >>>>> Hello you 2,
>         > > >>>>>
>         > > >>>>> I would like you to review the documentation I have
>         written about the
>         > > >>>>> kernel choice in IPFire 3.x at
>         http://wiki.ipfire.org/devel/kernels.
>         > > >>>>>
>         > > >>>>> We should just briefly write down why we decided to
>         do things in this
>         > > >>>>> way and I want to make sure that I did not get
>         anything wrong or missed
>         > > >>>>> an important reason.
>         > > >>>>>
>         > > >>>>>   -Michael
>         > > >>>>>
>         > > >>>>> P.S. Please make sure to reply to the list as well.
>         > > >>>>>
>         > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
>         > > >>>>> Documentation mailing list
>         > > >>>>> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
>         > > >>>>>
>         http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
>         > > >>>> _______________________________________________
>         > > >>>> Documentation mailing list
>         > > >>>> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
>         > > >>>>
>         http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
>         > > >
>         >
>         > _______________________________________________
>         > Documentation mailing list
>         > Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
>         > http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
>         
>         _______________________________________________
>         Documentation mailing list
>         Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
>         http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
>         
> 
>