XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy, alt.os.linux.mandrake, comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   XPost: alt.os.linux.redhat   
   From: reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com   
      
   In article , Liam   
   Slider wrote:   
   > Let me run through the differences between Mandrake 9 and Mandrake 10.   
   > mandrake 9 used an entirely different kernel, the 2.4 kernel, while   
   > Mandrake 10 uses 2.6 instead. The difference is actually pretty damn   
   > significant, there was a lot that was completely rewritten for that kernel   
   > change.  The new kernel has many advanced features, and is much *faster*   
   > than the old one too, leading to a faster, more advanced OS. Essentially,   
   > a whole different Linux.   
      
   What at the application level cares what kernel it is on?  Aside from some   
   very specialized server applications (e.g., I have a chat server that can't   
   really handle more than about 20000 simulataneous connections on 2.4, and I   
   think I could boost that to 100000 on 2.6), and general performance   
   improvements (e.g., if I'm listening to music when the morning cron jobs   
   run, it only glitches out for a few seconds on 2.6, as opposed to about 30   
   seconds on 2.4), I haven't seen much difference between 2.4 and 2.6 systems.   
      
   ...   
   > Next, we have the display system. Mandrake 9 used Xfree86, while Mandrake   
   > 10 uses X.org. This is again, a significant change to the very core of   
   > GNU/Linux. This is no mere fork, X.org adds quite a few new features to   
   > the display system, including support for a lot of OSX-style eye candy   
   > that just wasn't supported before. And it's a bit faster in my opinion.   
      
   So, if I were to install Mandrake 10, but were to use an XFree86-based   
   system as the display, what would I see not working?   
      
   --   
   --Tim Smith   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)