On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Philips wrote:
<snip>
> > then i suggest one uses a 2.4.xx-pre
> > kernel or whatever.
> >
>
> You are wrong.
> 2.4.* is quite stable on many boxes.
Er. Nobody said it wasn't. The comments related purely to the 2.4.*-pre*
kernels. Which are development kernels and therefore you should not
expect them to be stable (even though they are, as it happens, pretty
good).
> I'm monitoring linux-kernel list for possible problems and troubles. As I see
> ordinary configuration (no SCSI, UP, no USB, no devfs) are running fine for
> many peoples including me.
>
Actually, there have been some ext2 problems, but that is beside the
point.
> I've upgraded smoothly to 2.4.3pre4 without any problem.
>
> > The rule of thumb is, running a development kernel is not for the light of
> > heart, so the reason that the club of people here on this list say things about
> > development kernels lies in the reasons above.
> >
>
> FYI - 2.4 is stable branch.
Yes, but 2.4.*-PRE is NOT.
Before stating facts, it helps to read the mail you are replying to.
> On linux-kernel I see Alan Cox's posts about ac series - but I do not see any
> news from Linus. I suppose he is using some other list to communicate with
> maintainers.
>
Nope. There have not, as far as I am aware, been any kernel releases
recently. The -pre kernels are not, and AFAIK never have been, announce
anywhere. If you want to be that close to the bleeding edge, you are
expected to notice.
--
Mike Ricketts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Phone: +44 7968 381810
Nothing is faster than the speed of light ...
To prove this to yourself, try opening the refrigerator door before the
light comes on.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs
