From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Tremer To: documentation@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: [Documentation] Kernel choice in IPFire 3.x Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:31:49 +0100 Message-ID: <1327332709.2151.8.camel@rice-oxley.tremer.info> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0938029022911920399==" List-Id: --===============0938029022911920399== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 > 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 If we would call it "-outdated" or "-unsecure", nobody would 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 > : > > > > > > > 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 > > > --===============0938029022911920399==--