On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 01:34, you wrote: > n Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 10:34:10AM -0500, Post, Mark K wrote: > > The only warning I can think of is that you're going to be running a > > "development" kernel. Unless you're planning on being part of the > > development process, providing feedback to the kernel developers, etc., > > you don't want to do that. If that _is_ your intent, then go for it. > > Conversely, if the 2.5 series has some new feature you find useful that > isn't present in 2.4, it makes plenty of sense to run it. I haven't > kept up with 2.5, but if we can set the wayback machine.... > > It was a really long time between the 1.0 release and the 1.2 release, > and somewhere in there 1.1 got loadable kernel modules. So I ran > 1.1.whatever in production for a very long time, because I was typically > running on very memory constrained systems and being able to build a > minimal kernel and load and unload device drivers at whim was very > useful to me.
There is, though, a considerable difference between whatever you were doing back then and what someone might be doing on a s/390 or zSeries machine. It comes down to, if it's for educational purposes go ahead (but maybe on a PC). If it's production, only if there's not a better way. Same when 2.6 first comes out. I personally had problems with 2.2.0 and 2.4.0, with hardware that worked before didn't work now. AFAIK it still doesn't work in 2.4, last time there was some dicussion it went like this: device driver author <----- it's his fault -----> ext2 author -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Join the "Linux Support by Small Businesses" list at http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb
