From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 13:24:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 13:24:02 -0400 Received: from [195.57.250.2] ([195.57.250.2]:9617 "EHLO mcolom.barcelo") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 13:23:55 -0400 Message-ID: <3B17CDCF.AABA522B@barcelo.com> Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 19:15:59 +0200 From: Miquel Colom Piza X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [es] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.4 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.5 VM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org This is my first email to the list. I'm not subscribed but I've read it for years. I don't agree with those claiming that 2.4.xx is bad or still beta. We the administrators have the responsability to test early kernels and send good bug reports so the developers can solve the bugs. That's the way we can contribute to the community. But it's really risky to use these kernels on MAIN 24x7 production servers. This has been true for 1.2.x 2.0.x (I think that was the best linux kernel series) 2.2.x and 2.4.x and will be for 2.6.x also Given we know that the support from open source developers is clearly better than commercial contract supports, I don't see the reason to complain about the work of those wonderfull hackers spending their spare time coding for all of us. (I'm not subscribed to the list, Please CC me).