Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 21 Nov 1997 17:57:33 -0500 (EST) | From | "Simon's Mailing List Account" <> | Subject | Re: "stable" 2.1.xx? |
| |
I haven't had any crashes with 2.1.65, though it hasn't been under particularly tremendous loads.
--Simon
On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, John Jannotti wrote:
> > I know what I'm asking for is something of a contradiction in terms, > but is there a fairly stable 2.1.xx kernel? I'm working on a set of > modifications to Linux that I'd like to make generally available if > they turn out to be useful. I've been working on 2.0.30, but there > are a few things in the 2.1.xx series that might make my life easier - > and if the mods end up useful, I figure they are more usable if they > can be applied to more recent kernels. Anyway, is there a revision > number that is more likely to be helpful due to the new features in > 2.1 than harmful due to the increased instability? > > jj >
Simon Karpen slk@shodor.org Sysadmin, Shodor Education Foundation
"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!], `Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." -- Charles Babbage
| |