From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 14:41:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 14:40:54 -0400 Received: from www.casdn.neu.edu ([155.33.251.101]:4370 "EHLO www.casdn.neu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 14:40:30 -0400 From: "Andrew Scott" Organization: Northeastern University To: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:58:32 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Are we going too fast? Reply-to: A.J.Scott@casdn.neu.edu Message-ID: <3B78F648.14074.58721CD@localhost> In-Reply-To: <3B776EA5000338FD@mta3n.bluewin.ch> (added by postmaster@bluewin.ch) X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 13 Aug 2001, at 20:46, Per Jessen wrote: > >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. We've only just now moved from 2.0.36 to 2.2.18, and cautiously at that. We've started to run into applications that won't run on the older kernel/lib combinatons that we need. _ / \ / ascott@casdn.neu.edu / \ \ / / \_/