[lkml]   [2001]   [Aug]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Are we going too fast?
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 12:32:31 -0400 (EDT), PinkFreud wrote:

>> > The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.4.8 2001-08-11 04:13
>> > UTC Changelog
>> 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)
>I think that's a bit unfair. Rather, I suspect people see the word 'stable',
>and assume, for some unknown reason, that the kernel is stable. *AHEM*
>Seriously, though - even distributions are including 2.4 kernels now. RedHat,
>Mandrake, Slackware ... Should the latest versions of these distributions be
>considered unstable as well?

SuSE started shipping 7.1 with a 2.4.0 kernel (optional). I think I installed
it on a development workstation just about the time when 2.4.2 was released.

For what we do (, I tend to be more conservative, so we were
using 2.0.36 for quite some time, until we decided to move entirely to 2.2.12.
Our 16CPU cluster is up at 2.4.8 - trying to break things :-) - but for things
that people depend on, it's 2.2.19. Some workstations are at 2.4.x - depends.


Per Jessen, Zurich - home of the J1 serial console.

Windows 2001: "I'm sorry Dave ... I'm afraid I can't do that."

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:57    [W:0.394 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site