> >IMHO late 2.1.X was stable enough for production use and it had too many > >new features, compared to 2.0.x > > > >vesselin atanasov > > Thats funny...then how come 2.2.0 wasn't stable enough for production? LOL For many people it was - we just set *very* high standards. 2.1.102 #9 Wed May 20 17:11:45 BST 1998 i486 unknown 7:02pm up 211 days, 16:40, 1 user, load average: 0.07, 0.02, 0.00 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: ipchains ??? Dennis
- Re: ipchains ??? Alan Cox
- Re: ipchains ??? Dennis
- Re: ipchains ??? Vesselin Atanasov
- Re: ipchains ??? Dennis
- Re: ipchains ??? Vesselin Atanasov
- Re: ipchains ??? Dennis
- Re: ipchains ??? Jason Slagle
- Re: ipchains ??? Dennis
- Re: ipchains ??? Vesselin Atanasov
- Re: ipchains ??? Alan Cox
- Re: ipchains ??? linuxnet
- Re: ipchains ??? Henrik Olsen
- Re: ipchains ??? Dennis
- Re: ipchains ??? Dennis
- Use the Source, Luke. Ford Prefect
- Re: Use the Source, Luke. Thomas Good
- Re: Use the Source, Luke. Mark H. Wood
- Re: ipchains ??? yenjet
- Re: ipchains ??? jamal
- Re: ipchains ??? Dennis
