From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:38:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:37:51 -0400 Received: from mta3n.bluewin.ch ([195.186.1.212]:52514 "EHLO mta3n.bluewin.ch") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:37:43 -0400 Message-ID: <3B776EA5000338FD@mta3n.bluewin.ch> (added by postmaster@bluewin.ch) From: "Per Jessen" To: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 20:46:20 +0200 Reply-To: "Per Jessen" X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Professional (2.01.1600) For Windows 95 (4.0.1212) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Are we going too fast? Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:11:32 +0100 (BST), Alan Cox wrote: > >If you want maximum stability you want to be running 2.2 or even 2.0. Newer >less tested code is always less table. 2.4 wont be as stable as 2.2 for a >year yet. Couldn't have put that any better. On mission-critical systems, this is exactly what people do. Personally, my experience is from the big-iron world of S390 - if you're a bleeding-edge organisation, you'll be out there applying the latest PTFs, you'll be running the latest OS/390 etc. If you're conservative, you're at least 2, maybe 3 releases (in todays OS390 this means about 18-24 months) behind. If you're ultra-conservative, you'll wait for the point where you can no longer avoid an upgrade. regards, Per Jessen regards, Per Jessen, Zurich http://www.enidan.com - home of the J1 serial console. Windows 2001: "I'm sorry Dave ... I'm afraid I can't do that."