[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectThe stability crisis
    Linux 2.2.36 was a very stable kernel. I have never experianced a crash
    with it. However, this does not at all hold true for the 2.2.x series.

    During the initial stage of the 2.2 series, it was pretty darn stable. I
    got about 60 days of uptime out of 2.2.1 until a power failure or a need
    to mess with hardware or something. (Actually, now I think it was a hard
    lockup). Back then we knew that 2.2 was not at all as stable as 2.0.36,
    but we knew it would mature.


    Linus waited a few months to open the 2.3 branch. A lot of untested
    patches were making it into the 2.2 series! People like me breathed a sigh
    of relief when Linus opened up the 2.3 branch. Now we knew that all of the
    patches would go into 2.3 and 2.2 would become mature and stable like

    But that was only half right. Linus decided to hasten the release of 2.4
    to "in the fall", and all of the developers jumped onto the 2.3 kernel,
    leaving us with a stable kernel which is totally inadequate.

    2.2.10 is by far less stable than any operating system I have used
    excuding MacOS. During the past _week_ I have had three oopsen using
    kernel 2.2.9 and 2.2.10. I have never had an oops before this week with
    the exception of Linux on platforms where the ports are excusabe immature
    and on unstable hardware. Once I found a small bug with a friend in 2.0.x
    that caused an oops but it wasn't anything major. It was fixed

    All the attention has shifted to 2.3. Most people as well as benchmarkers
    are using 2.2.10. Helloo??? This is a perfect time for Microsoft to spread
    FUD since the "stable" branch of Linux is far less stable than even
    needs to be done about this fast. I reccomend that 2.2.10 be made rock
    solid. Most features and new device drivers can wait until fall with 2.4.
    Of course, 2.4 should be made and kept very stable as a 2.5 or 2.9 is
    opened up immediately.

    I hate to bitch about stuff like this but if I were to try to write kernel
    code I would probably just add more fatal bugs :).

    Maybe Alan Cox should voulenteer to maintain 2.2 :). He did a great job
    with 2.0.

    And all kernel hackers out there, PLEASE help make 2.2 more stable.

    Speed is a problem that has been dealt with a lot lately, due to the
    numerous benchmarks. I believe that this is also a priority, but
    secondary to stability, at least at this level of instability.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.020 / U:56.952 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site