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 18:20:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:20:15 -0400 Received: from itvu-63-210-168-13.intervu.net ([63.210.168.13]:6027 "EHLO pga.intervu.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:20:05 -0400 Message-ID: <3B79A5D2.3F373D15@randomlogic.com> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 15:27:30 -0700 From: "Paul G. Allen" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2-2 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Are we going too fast? In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)@localhost.localdomain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox wrote: > > > If this is truely the case, I'd suggest that kernel.org be modified, as > > it refers to them as *stable* > > as of 9:18PM PDT, direct copy & paste from kernel.org page: > > > > The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.4.8 2001-08-11 04:13 > > UTC Changelog > > > > The latest prepatch (alpha) version appears to be: 2.4.9-pre3 2001-08-13 > > 23:56 UTC Changelog > > Kernel.org certainly should list the 2.2 status (hey I maintain it I'm > allowed to be biased). Its unfortunate it many ways that people are still so > programmed to the "latest version" obsession of the proprietary world some > times. For most people 2.4 is the right choice but for absolute stability > why change 8) Agreed. 2.2.x works just fine for us on our servers (some have been up for over a year, some maybe longer, but the longer they're up without problems, the easier it is to forget they even exist ;) I am using 2.4 because my personal MoBo is so new, it's the only kernel that will work worth a darn on it. I am also wanting to upgrade some servers as soon as a more stable kernel is available because there are some improvements in the newer kernels that I feel could be of great benefit (but then that's my personal view, and not necessarily a company view). It has been long known that even numbered kernels are stable kernels, not necessarily bug free (nothing is, escept for what I write ;-), and odd numbered are development kernels. By this definition, 2.4.x kernels are stable (in most cases it seems it's the hardware that's not). PGA -- Paul G. Allen UNIX Admin II/Programmer Akamai Technologies, Inc. www.akamai.com Work: (858)909-3630 Cell: (858)395-5043