Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 05:05:01 -0500
Posted-Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 04:04:48 -0600
Message-Id: <199512071004.EAA25769@dialup-pkr-3-2.network.umr.edu>
Subject: Re: Sound in pre2 works (and other status) (fwd)
To: geh@mda.ca (Graeme Hiebert)
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 04:04:38 -0600 (CST)
Cc: java-linux@java.blackdown.org
In-Reply-To: <9512062217.AA11194@mailer.mda.ca> from "Graeme Hiebert" at Dec 6, 95 02:17:33 pm
From: tfries@umr.edu (Todd Fries)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length:       1078
Resent-Message-Id: <"6BSmw3.0.S75.gmhnm"@liquor>
Resent-From: java-linux@java.blackdown.org
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: java-linux-request@java.blackdown.org

> While the 1.3 kernels do seem very stable these days - especially in
> comparison to some of the 1.1 kernels - I think it would be a mistake
> to rely on 1.3.  We want to bring Java to the masses, not just to
> the bleeding edgers.  The "official" kernel is 1.2.x, and that should
> be the basis.

For what it's worth, imnsho, I don't agree.  1.3.x has caused me very few
problems aside from a couple of known unstable versions..  If one is going
to run 'alpha' test programs, one can expect to have constraints.  Using
the latest kernel is certainly not any kind of unusual request.

> Obviously, a 1.2.x-compatible java would still have to work under 1.3.x,
> so people wouldn't have to downgrade.  (I don't think I'd want to go
> back to 1.2.x, even to run Java.)
> 
> I really have no clue as to whether kernel threads are The Right Thing.
> If it can work with kernel threads, then go for it, but is still essential
> to keep it 1.2-compatible.

I would hope that using kernel threads would be good.  What else would
they be there for?

My $.02..

Todd....tfries@umr.edu