* nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake thus: > Craig Dickson said: > > > Your call, of course, for your machines. But in general I've found > > 2.4 to be pretty decent. I had something like two months of uptime > > with 2.4.9 before I decided to upgrade it to 2.4.12-ac3, which in > > turn ran for a few weeks flawlessly before I decided to upgrade to > > 2.4.15... which was a mistake, to judge from the postings we've > > [..]
<snip lots of uptimes> > once linux 2.4 gets to the point of 1 upgrade every 6-8-10 months then > it'll be stable enough for me..i tried 2.4 on a desktop at home a > couple months ago and it wouldn't even boot.. Not trying to sound like a wise-guy here, but I don't think you should blame the kernel's stability for you failing to make it boot. Sounds more like a configuration error to me (which is ok, I remember the config being a bit different from 2.2.x to 2.4.x...). Just my £.02 ... Regards, Stig -- brautaset.org Registered Linux User 107343