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

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@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    If we would call it "-outdated" or "-unsecure", nobody would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@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@lists.ipfire.org
    > > >>>>>
    http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
    > > >>>> _______________________________________________
    > > >>>> Documentation mailing list
    > > >>>> Documentation@lists.ipfire.org
    > > >>>>
    http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
    > > >
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > Documentation mailing list
    > Documentation@lists.ipfire.org
    > http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation

    _______________________________________________
    Documentation mailing list
    Documentation@lists.ipfire.org
    http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation